Physical Pre-Employment Screening and Occupational Testing

Posts Tagged ‘alcohol testing’

Welcome to the Age of No-Refusal Weekends

Monday, May 25th, 2009

I just read an article that I found very surprising and disturbing.
Read it here.

The article re-counted an obscure practice in Dallas, Texas, coined “No-Refusal Weekend.”  The basic idea is that if a law enforcement officer suspects a driver of being impaired by alcohol they have the right to draw blood from them on-site.  The donor is not allowed to refuse.  The city of Dallas has been using this program during high risk weekends for one year, with surprising results.

“According to the police, 335 people have had their blood drawn during the handful of no-refusal weekends, and of the tests taken, all but five came back with results well over the legal blood alcohol level of .08 — and in most cases, they were closer to double the legal limit. . . . They also noted that not a single one of these blood test cases had gone before a jury. . . . all 51 cases that have thus far entered the legal system pleaded guilty before ever heading to trial.”

While I am happy that so many drunk drivers were removed from the roads, I have a nagging feeling that this is not the most appropriate way to do so.  Forcefully drawing blood from someone without a court order, or their consent seems highly questionable at the very least.  Whatever happened to the good ‘ol fashioned breathalyzer?  It is scientifically proven to been an accurate indicator of blood alcohol content, with no potential risk for spreading blood transmitted diseases such as hepatitis and AIDS.  There is also the fact that drivers are not allowed to refuse.  There are always mitigating circumstances, where refusal may be justified.

Making the roads a safer place is a good thing, but infringing on basic rights and freedoms is unconstitutional and not necessary, especially with non-invasive methods readily available.  Apart from basic rights and freedoms, what sanitary precautions will be used, how are needles stored and disposed of, what type of chain of custody is in place to ensure that samples are properly cataloged, what type of training will law enforcement officials be given?  There are too man unanswered questions.

I am thankful to be a citizen of Canada, where I am confidant that the Charter of Right and Freedoms would not allow for such a cavalier attitude towards human rights.  But then again, if drivers would just learn their lesson and not drink and drive, the need for methods such as this would cease to exist.

Who’s Right’s Are We Protecting

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

The issue of employee drug testing has been in the news a lot in the past few months, with the case of Chiasson vs. KBR at the forefront of the controversy. But let’s examine the underlying concerns associated with employee drug testing.

Looking first from the side of the employee, the argument is that drug testing is an invasion of privacy and should have no bearing on their employment status. Potential employees occassionally feel that the use of drugs during non-work hours should not affect employment.

The main concern is that the substance use and abuse that we are discussing pertains to illegal materials that affect motor skills, mood and judgment. In safety sensitive jobs the difference between impairment and a clean mind could mean the difference between life and injury or on the extreme end, life and death.

Companies are finally trying to take a proactive approach in preventing substance abuse amongst their employees in the workplace and are being penalized because of it. These employers are trying to take a step in the right direction, and unfortunately, illegal drug users are taking companies to court feeling that their “right” to partake in illegal activities on their own time is being violated. This sounds completely ridiculous. Should the safety of all workers on a job site not take precedence over specific individuals who openly exercise their “right” to partake in illegal activities after work hours?

Consider the following statistics when deciding whether or not drug testing should be used as a screening technique with new employees.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the average cost of drug abuse per employee annually is $10,000 due to employee turnover, Workers Compensation claims, absenteeism, employee theft, violence on the job and the use of health care benefits.

When there is drug abuse in the workplace, annually, there is:

  • 5 times more Workers Compensation Claims
  • 30% greater employee turnover
  • 40 versus 4 days of employee absenteeism
  • 36 times higher employee theft
  • 300 - 400% more health care benefit utilization
  • A greater chance of workplace violence ( 2/3 of arestees in such incidences test positive)
    (National Instiutute on Drug Abuse)

I look forward to seeing if the current case of Kellogg Brown & Root goes to the Supreme court so that we can have a standard precedent to use in Canada. It is time for the frivolous court cases to stop, so that we can return our focus to the work at hand: Building the Canadian economy, and protecting our citizens in the process.

British Columbia Opens Its Arms To Employee Drug Testing

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

This summer, a monumental agreement was signed in British Columbia. The Substance Abuse Testing and Treatment Program Policy was signed by the Construction Labour Relations Association (CLRA) of B.C. and the Bargaining Council of B.C. Building Trades Unions. This agreement requires workers to be tested after an accident or near miss or if there is reasonable suspicion of on-the-job impairment.

Until now, many companies in British Columbia have been hesitant to allow employee drug testing to occur, fearing that it may tread of employee’s rights. This recent move, is beginning to reflect a change in the thought’s of employers.

The Construction Labour Relations Association and the Bargaining Council of British Columbia Building Trades Unions heralded the policy as the first industry-wide pact on substance abuse in Canada.

Much like their neighbors in Alberta, British Columbian companies are beginning to realize the negative effects of drug use and impairment in the work place. The move towards testing employee’s post-incident, is beginning to pave the way to an embrace of pre-employment screening in safety-sensitive positions.

It is my belief that the more pre-employment drug screening that a company undertakes, the less likely they will be performing post-incident drug tests. If company’s can prevent incident’s from happenning, rather then discipling employee’s when they do, is this not a more effective strategy to workplace safety?

While this agreement, is a tremendous step in the right direction, more needs to be done in an effort to promote workplace safety.

I commend those who signed The Substance Abuse Testing and Treatment Program Policy, but I emplore them to continue the efforts in British Columbia.

The Cost of Hiring an Unhealthy Worker

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

As Canadian businesses begin to feel the effects of an economic downturn, one thing is in the back of everyone’s mind: saving money and cutting costs. Gone is the financial boom we experienced in the early years of the millennium. 2009 is the year to reflect on current business practises in an effort to shrink costs and reduce overhead. But, where is the best place to start?

The average cost to hire a new employee in North America is $4,588.00! This is a staggering number which includes everything from the cost associated with the exiting employee to the costs of hiring and training a new worker and the loss of productivity during the transitional period. In the past, companies have accepted high employee turnover as an uncontrollable cost of doing business. This does not have to be the case. While occasionally people leave a job with little justification, the majority of the time, employee turnover is foreseeable and preventable. The number one secret to long-term employee retention and productivity is to hire qualified, “healthy” candidates.

In the context of employee screening, “healthy” does not mean that a candidate needs to be in peak physical condition, or even that they eat tofu and bean sprouts for lunch. If that were the case, the majority of Canadian businesses would have a non-functional workforce! A healthy worker is someone who is: physically, emotionally and mentally capable of excelling in the position that he or she is hired for.

Take for example, the case of a receptionist who is hired with a new company, let’s call her Susie. Susie is extremely pleasant, has years of experience and is very knowledgeable in her field. In essence, she seems like an ideal candidate. Unfortunately, three months into the job, Susie’s doctor discovers that she has carpal tunnel syndrome. Physically, Susie would be unable to effectively perform the functions needed to excel at her job. The discovery quickly leads to a worker’s compensation claim, followed by time off of work necessary for treatment and recovery. A temporary receptionist is hired to fill in until the doctor gives Susie clearance to return to work.

When Susie was hired, although she seemed ideal, she was not a “healthy” employee. If her company would have pre-screened her for carpal tunnel syndrome, they would have discovered that she was not a suitable candidate for a receptionist position, and would have saved several thousand dollars with the associated costs of Susie’s recovery. The average cost of a worker’s compensation lost time claim alone is $5,574.00, not including the cost of hiring a replacement worker.

Susie’s case is just one of many examples of the cost of “unhealthy” employees in the workplace. Another common example is candidates who struggle with drug and alcohol abuse and/or addiction. Employee drug abuse in the workplace causes five times more workers compensation claims, 36 times higher employee theft, 300 - 400% more health care benefit utilization and a greater chance of workplace violence, with 2/3 of people arrested in workplace violence situations testing positive for illegal drugs.

It is “unhealthy” workers who are the leading cause of workers compensations claims, low productivity, and eventually employee turnover. Companies have the resources available to pre-screen their job candidates, ensuring that they hire “healthy” workers. It is one of the easiest and most effective ways to cut costs and at the same time improve the overall state of a company. Employee pre-screening saves money, cuts costs, increases productivity and improves employee morale, with limited time and effort.