Boston Massachusetts Fire Fighters Union - Not the Norm

Random drug-testing programs are problematic for some unions.

Union leadership claims random drug testing is a violation of workers' right to privacy. Yet, this is appears to be an indefensible position.

Concerns of employee safety and public safety should be the #1 priority with union leaders. Sadly, it may not case for some.

Many non-union employees are required to have a pre-employment drug test and a random drug test. If workers refuse testing, they are terminated. If employees fail a drug test ... they are terminated - (which I don't view as best practice)-, or suspended and subsequently referred to an employee assistance program (EAP), which may or may not be funded by company insurance.

Simple... straight forward... and effective.

Random drug testing, conducted properly, is an effective deterent to on-the-job substance abuse, as well as a detection mechanism. What an employee does at home is not the business of any employer. When employee's behaviors effect the safety of their collegues or the public... it's not only their employers' business... it's their employers' legal obligation.

While many unions have adopted, or at least allowed random drug and alcohol testing, the Boston / Massachusetts Fire Fighters Union has failed to protect its members and the public at large.

No employee, or the public wants a drug or alcohol impaired individual in a safety sensitive position.

The Boston Fire Department had a recent tragedy in which two fatalities tested "positive" for drugs and/or alcohol. Whether this information should have been released to the public the way it was... is certainly questionable. No one should question the bravery of the individual involve, and most would not consider it.

The subsequent stonewalling of the fire fighters unions relative to drug testing is unconscionable, however, and a disgrace to everyone.

Drugged Driving and Alcohol DUI Leading Cause of Deaths

2008 SAMHSA REPORT - United Stated Department of Heatlh and Human Services

5% of people drove under the influence of illicit drugs in the past year (10 million drivers)
(15% under influence of alcohol).

States with the highest drugged driving rates:
District of Columbia (7.0 percent),
Rhode Island (6.8 percent),
Massachusetts (6.4 percent),
Montana (6.3 percent), and
Wyoming (6.2 percent).

Impaired driving is the LEADING CAUSE OF DEATHS among persons aged 3 to 33.

Illicit drugs, as defined above, includes marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), inhalants, hallucinogens, heroin, or prescription-type drugs used nonmedically.

Random Student Drug Testing - 2008

CALVERTON, Md., April 2, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

A substantial proportion of the nation's public school districts have instituted random drug testing among their high school students, some possibly going beyond sanctions set by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a study led by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE). These sanctions limit testing to students involved in sports and extracurricular activities.

The study, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, includes data collected from 1,343 drug prevention coordinators in a nationally representative sample of school districts that include high school students. Fourteen percent of the nation's school districts reported conducting random drug testing of students in high school grades in the 2004-2005 academic year.

Nearly all school districts that implemented random drug testing procedures subjected their athletes to the possibility of being tested, and two-thirds randomly tested high school students who participated in other extracurricular activities. More than a quarter of the districts that implemented random drug testing subjected all their high school students to the possibility of being tested.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that testing student athletes for drugs is constitutional, even in the absence of any suspicion of substance use. In a subsequent case, the Court extended its ruling to include students participating in extracurricular activities.
"Random student drug testing will likely continue to be controversial and the practice is likely to be contested, just as we saw with the recent ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court," said Dr. Chris Ringwalt, Senior Research Scientist at PIRE. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled on March 13, 2008, based on a lawsuit that student athletes brought against a local school district, that random drug testing of student athletes is not allowed under the state's constitution, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's 1995 ruling (Supreme Court of the State of Washington. York v. Wahkiakum School District No. 200. Docket No: 99-2-00075-6, March 13, 2008).

Dr. Ringwalt concluded, "This study will provide a benchmark for monitoring the prevalence of random drug testing of high school students in the future."
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation

Saliva / Oral Fluid Proteins Mapped

Protein map of human spit created
By Julie Steenhuysen 27 minutes ago

CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. researchers have identified all 1,116 unique proteins found in human saliva glands, a discovery they said on Tuesday could usher in a wave of convenient, spit-based diagnostic tests that could be done without the need for a single drop of blood.

As many as 20 percent of the proteins that are found in saliva are also found in blood, said Fred Hagan, a researcher at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York who worked on the study.

"This is potentially a large field that has many clinical implications in the area of disease diagnostics," said Hagan, whose work was published in the Journal of Proteome Research.

The researchers hope saliva-based tests could be used to diagnose cancer, heart disease, diabetes and a number of other conditions.

"To be able to diagnose disease using saliva, you really have to have a comprehensive understanding of the saliva proteome," Hagan said in a telephone interview.

Like a genome, which lists all of the genes in an organism, a proteome is a complete map of proteins. While genes provide the instruction manual, proteins carry out the instructions by regulating cellular processes.

Researchers from five universities -- the University of Rochester, The Scripps Research Institute, the University of Southern California, The University of California San Francisco and the University of California Los Angeles -- sought to determine the complete set of proteins secreted by the major salivary glands.

BLOOD, SPIT AND TEARS

They collected saliva from 23 healthy men and women of several races. They tested saliva samples using some form of mass spectrometry, which determines the identity of proteins based on measurements of their mass and charge.

They compared their findings with recent protein maps of human blood and tears.

Early analysis has already turned up a number of proteins with known roles in Alzheimer's, Huntington's and Parkinson's diseases; breast, colorectal and pancreatic cancer and diabetes.

Most of the proteins were part of signaling pathways, which are key to the body's response to system wide diseases.

Hagan said the work should accelerate the development of new tools for tracking disease throughout the body.

Already there are saliva-based antibody tests to detect human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, and hepatitis infections, Hagan said. He said this protein map will provide new targets.

"Monitoring disease as well as drug use could be more easily done with saliva as opposed to blood or urine," he said.

Other groups are working on a saliva-based test for breast cancer that would detect a protein fragment from the HER2 protein. Hagan said such tests could eventually replace uncomfortable and costly mammograms.

"We envision in the future spitting in a tube and looking for a marker like this breast cancer marker. It would be much easier to do, potentially at home," he said.

"Given that we've made this information publicly available, we fully expect a number of research groups will be picking their favorite targets and developing their own tests. That is the intent -- to create a wealth of data to stimulate more research and increase the chances of producing better diagnostic tests," Hagan said.

(Editing by Maggie Fox and Mohammad Zargham)

Drug Testing for Traffice Accidents

Kansas House approves bill to require drug testing in ‘major’ wrecks.

Drivers and passengers involved in “major” traffic wrecks in Kansas would be required to submit to drug testing, if a bill approved by the state’s House becomes law.

State law now allows law enforcement officers to order drug testing, if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is under the influence.

The House voted 117-5 to forward a bill to the Senate that would require truckers and other drivers, as well as their passengers, to undergo drug testing when they are involved in certain types of wrecks.

Officers would no longer need a presumption of a drug violation to force drivers to submit to the testing.

Supporters say changes are needed to make it easier to test people involved in wrecks resulting in fatalities or serious injuries. The bill would allow law enforcement to collect evidence for potential criminal prosecutions, they say.
Opponents say it is unconstitutional to force someone to submit to a blood or urine test if there is no probable cause to suspect them of a crime.
A provision added to the bill would permit people to refuse to a test. Taking that route, however, could result in loss of driving privileges.
Another change to the bill would authorize officers to waive the test requirement if they believe the actions of the driver did not contribute to the wreck.
The bill – HB2617 – has moved to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Source: By Keith Goble, state legislative editorkeith_goble@landlinemag.com

Drug Testing in Schools

School Drug Testing

Bethlehem Schools Adopt Drug Testing PolicyAnyone looking to work in the Bethlehem Area School District will now have to take a drug test.Monday night, the school board voted to approve a pre-employment drug testing policy.

Starting immediately, new and prospective employees will have to get tested before they can work.

The policy was proposed after Nitschmann Middle School principal John Acerra was arrested on drug charges.

Loretta Leeson: "A drug test doesn't always screen everything but I think we're taking the right steps to at least protecting the children in the district and other employees in the district."One board member has requested looking into testing all employees.

Source: http://wfmz.com/view/?id=228306

Accuracy of On-site Oral Fluid / Saliva Drug Testing

Journal of Psychoactive Drugs

A comparison between instant and laboratory oral fluid analysis among arrestees.
Yacoubian GS; Wish ED.

Research studies that collect biological measures of drug use have traditionally utilized laboratory urinalysis.

Several recent studies have also documented the utility of laboratory oral fluid (OF) analysis.
A new method of drug testing -- instant OF technology -- may offer a quicker, equally accurate alternative to laboratory OF assays.

To date, however, no field studies have compared the two methods.

In the current study, an instant OF test (Avitar ORALscreen (TM)) was administered to adult arrestees surveyed through Maryland's Substance Abuse Need for Treatment among Arrestees (SANTA) study.

Following a research interview, a second OF sample was collected (Avitar ORALconfirm (TM)) and shipped to the manufacturer's laboratory for analysis.

The Avtiar ORALscreen instant OF test was -

96% sensitive and 83% specific for cocaine,

100% sensitive and 75% specific for opiates, and
100% sensitive and 94% specific for marijuana.

Copyright 2006, Haight-Ashbury Publishing

Reference Source: Yacoubian GS; Wish ED. A comparison between instant and laboratory oral fluid analysis among arrestees. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 38(2): 207-210, 2006. (10 refs.)

Courts Uphold Workplace Drug Testing - Once Again

Alberta Court of Appeal ruling upholds construction workplace drug testing
(Source: Canadian Press)

EDMONTON - Construction and energy companies are happy with an Alberta court ruling that upholds the right of employers to test workers for drugs.

The Alberta Court of Appeal's decision overturned a lower court judgment that said Kellogg, Brown & Root Co. discriminated against a man in 2002 when it fired him from an oilsands project near Fort McMurray after he tested positive for marijuana.

John Chiasson, who admitted to being a recreational pot smoker, filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which ruled against him. The commission said there needs to be a balance between an individual's human rights and the needs of an employer in protecting others.

But Court of Queen's Bench Justice Sheilah Martin then ruled in his favour. She said he should have been treated the same as someone with a drug addiction, which is considered a disability in human rights case law.
The panel of three Appeal Court justices disagreed. The judges said it is legitimate for Kellogg, Brown & Root to presume that people who use drugs at all are a safety risk in an already dangerous workplace.

"We see this case as no different than that of a trucking or taxi company which has a policy requiring its employees to refrain from the use of alcohol for some time before the employee drives one of the employer's vehicles," the justices wrote.

"Extending human rights protections to situations resulting in placing the lives of others at risk flies in the face of logic."

Kellogg, Brown & Root, one of the largest construction firms in the world, was helping to build an expansion to Syncrude Canada's plant at the time of Chiasson's case and is still active in the oilsands.

Andrew Robertson, a lawyer for the company, said the Appeal Court's decision is important to energy and construction industries.

"It is refreshing to see the Alberta Court of Appeal factor in risk management in safety-sensitive workplaces in a circumstance when there had been a recent focus on human rights issues," he said.

Heather Browne, a spokeswoman for Texas-based Kellogg, Brown & Root, hailed the ruling.
"KBR is a leader in workplace safety, and maintaining that commitment is the company's top priority," Browne said Wednesday.
"The court ruling upholds that commitment and we look forward to continuing our work in that regard."

"This affects a lot of people and it is important. The commission does have a duty to ensure that the rights of all Albertans - both employers and employees - are balanced in this respect."

During the original court case, officials with oilsands giant Syncrude testified that the company's lost-time rate from accidents has dropped in part because of drug and alcohol testing.

Syncrude, Suncor, Albian Sands and other major oilsands heavyweights test their employees for drugs before they are allowed on jobsites.

Kara Flynn, a spokeswoman for Syncrude, said that in a broad sense, the Appeal Court ruling supports the company's drug-testing policy and goals.

"Any judicial decisions that support that are greatly appreciated," she said.

The impact of the ruling is already starting to ripple beyond Alberta's boundaries.
Phil Hochstein, president of the Independent Contractors and Business Association in British Columbia, said while workplace drug testing is common on major projects in Alberta, it is the exception in B.C.

He expects that is going to change.
"I think that workplace testing of construction workers is probably an issue whose time has come," he said from Vancouver.
"I think this case is going to spur more of this jobsite testing, not only on big industrial jobs, but on commercial and institutional jobs throughout the country."

DOT Urine Drug Testing Not Working - New Government GAO Report

Now even the US Government knows the obvious ....

Drug testing without observed specimen collection, is a waste of time and money.





Private interest groups, consisting largely of urine drug testing laboratories, urine-centric TPA's, occupational health clinics, some unions, as well as a select group of archaic government bureaucracies (DOT, FAA, etc.) continue to exclusively support urine-based testing vs. superior, user-friendly technologies - most notably oral fluid / saliva and hair-based drug screening.

Oral fluid / saliva and hair-based drug screening technologies allow for observed specimen collection and are relatively non-invasive vs. traditional urine drug testing. Oral fluid delivers information on "current" / "on-the-job" drug and/or alcohol use, while hair detects "historical drug abuse".

• Oral fluid / saliva is suitable for random, post-accident, and reasonable suspicion testing, and also can be used for pre-employment testing.
• Hair is most appropriate for pre-employment testing, especially for employers that wish to track drug use history for a period of up to 90 days.

The DOT and other government agencies, including "regulatory agencies" such as SAMHSA are largely to blame for the continued emphasis upon traditional urine-based testing, and ultimately serving to help perpetuate America's problem with substance abuse.

Why? Government agencies resist moving to newer technologies either due to the fear of having to "do more work", and/or are impacted by private interest groups with heavy lobbying budgets and well established "old boy networks".
In their defense, the DOT claims "success" by noting a "2% positive rate". This is a blatant misuse of statistics. Of course the is only a 2% positive rate... as most drug abusers are cheating the test!
As noted below, if drug testing involved observed specimen collection, and/or more stringent techniques the positive rate soars to 10%.

Urine-based drug testing is simply:
1. too difficult, costly, and noxious to apply consistently and on a corporate-wide / industry-wide basis,
2. prone to drug abusers "beating the test".

Several documented cases support the above facts:
For example, a recent construction site that had a low "positive rate" using tradition urine drug testing, but had several site issues and eventually discovered hypodermic needles on-site.
When they implemented Avitar's oral fluid-based testing, conducing a full site-based random screen, the positive rate registered 20%!

Urine testing laboratories, in most cases, are not able to determine if urine samples are adulterated or substituted, other than in the most basic and severe cases.
Despite this fact, they continue to spread misinformation, claiming the opposite.
The Director of Workplace Drug Testing for SAMHSA is on record, testifying before Congress, that detect adulterants, that labs can only detect a very small fraction of the many products available on the Internet available to beat urine-based drug tests, and that substituted drug free urine and synthetic urine also are undetectable.

GAO: Easy to cheat on trucker drug tests
Three-quarters of testing sites don’t provide secure conditions, report finds
The Transportation Department estimates that fewer than 2 percent of truck drivers test positive each year for controlled substances.
But when Oregon conducted its own tests, 9 percent of truck drivers tested positive.
Dozens of products on the Web are marketed to truckers as fail-safe ways to defeat the mandatory drug tests.
WASHINGTON - Undercover federal investigators discovered that it was surprisingly easy to cheat on random drug tests designed to catch truck drivers who use drugs, NBC News has learned.
Undercover investigators with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, used bogus truck driver’s licenses to gain access to 24 drug-testing sites.
They found that 75 percent “failed to restrict access to items that could be used to adulterate or dilute the [urine] specimen, meaning that running water, soap, or air freshener was available in the bathroom during the test.”
The GAO team also bought drug-masking products over the Web and was able to mix them with real specimens at the drug-testing sites “without being caught by site collectors,” the agency said in a report scheduled to be made public ThursdayDrug - screening labs never realized that there was a problem.
“Every drug masking product went undetected by the drug screening labs,” said the report, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News.Rep.
Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said the report was “frankly astonishing and shocking and dismaying.
You can manipulate the tests, you can mask substance abuse and go undetected on the roadways.”Oberstar, who planned to hold a hearing Thursday, said the drug-testing system was broken and was placing other drivers in danger.“It fails, it is not sufficient, it is not protecting the public interest,” he said.
How many are cheating?
The Transportation Department estimates that fewer than 2 percent of truck drivers test positive each year for controlled substances in random federal tests.
But when Oregon law enforcement officials conducted their own random tests this year, 9 percent of truck drivers tested positive.
Dozens of products widely available on the Web are marketed to truckers as fail-safe ways to defeat the mandatory drug tests.
“My first reaction was total disbelief. I just felt sick,” said Kathleen Ellsbury, whose husband, Tony Qamar, was killed two years ago when a truck driver in Washington state lost his load of logs on a curve, crushing Qamar’s car.
Also killed was Daniel Johnson, a fellow seismologist at the University of Washington.Ellsbury learned later that the truck driver, who was sentenced to 4½ years in prison for vehicular homicide, had previously been convicted of possessing methamphetamines and that he had meth in his blood at the time of the crash.
“The system has big holes, let’s say that,” said Ellsbury, who said she had a message for truck drivers who might be tempted to cheat:
“I’d like to be standing right outside the bathroom and hold up a picture of my husband — remind them there's consequences.”
Truckers promise to do betterSpokesmen for the trucking industry said truck drivers were among the safest drivers on the road, with much lower rates of drug use than the general population. Still, they said, having roughly 30,000 drivers test positive each year was unacceptable.
Lisa Myers is chief investigative correspondent and Richard Gardella is an investigative producer for NBC.

BCTD Building Construction Trades Department " New " Drug Testing Program - A Costly Mistake

For Safety Professionals attempting to innovate and improve efforts can be frustrating, largel due to the fact that politics can easily supersede logic.



That said, while potentially well-intentioned, the "new" Building and Construction Trades Department - BCTD drug testing program ( which oddly requires outdated and relatively ineffective urine-based testing as well as the use of a specific laboratory, third party administrator, and their specific product and services ) represents a step backwards...not forward ,



more importantly, however, this archaic structure does NOT serve the best interests of unions, union members, contractors, insurers, or owners.



The Need for Change:

Abuse in the Construction SectorWe all know that a drug free workplace is a safe workplace and the union skilled trades and contractors were ahead of their time years 16 years ago, when urine-based drug testing was introduce by innovators as evidence by the MUST program, LEAD, and others.However, times change, the drugs of choice change and the numbers of ways to “beat” the tests have changed.

It’s time again for the union skilled trades and contractors to leap ahead of the national status quo.



Recently the States of Hawaii and Georgia passed legislation to improve safety and reduce workers compensation costs through the implementation of on-site oral fluid / saliva drug screening.The construction industry played a key role in driving these changes, especially in Hawaii.

Organized labor in particular, as well as contractors, owners, and insurers recognized the following:



Drug abuse in the construction sector is as bad, if not worse than ever,



Effective drug testing, especially random drug testing is required to truly manage workplace substance abuse,



Observed specimen collection, convenience, and low cost are mandatory to ensure compliance.



It's time again for union's to put politics aside and address the issue from from a safety point of view:



Why should every construction site drug test?

Simple. While 10% of employees aged 18 – 49 years abuse drugs (not including alcohol), the construction industry runs 2x-3x this rate.With over 50% of reportable job-site accidents linked to substance abuse, it’s clear that employee safety and the corporate bottom line are sufficient reasons to implement a drug free workplace program.



A need for change

Pre-employment drug testing has become an intelligence test. Access to the internet has made defeating drug tests an easy task. Workers are able to get information on how to “flush” their system; adulterate samples; and there are even products like the Whizinator, which uses synthetic urine undetectable by current drug testing methods, designed to defeat observed urine collection.

Random drug testing, post-incident and reasonable suspicion modes are required components of any comprehensive, effective safety program.

The goal of any drug / alcohol policy is deterrence vs. “catching” employees. Random testing has consistently demonstrated to be singularly effective in reducing on-the-job substance abuse.

Any effective testing mode must involve direct observation of specimen collection. But observed urine collection is embarrassing and degrading to both the observed and the observer.Arguably, there are more instances of drug abusers defeating unobserved techniques, such as traditional urine-based testing, than there are “positives”. Just look at nationwide statistics for validation. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of drug abusers are employed. Furthermore most drug testing (approx. 90%) involves traditional urine laboratory-based pre-employment testing.



Oral fluid works

Oral fluid tests are cheaper, faster and easier to use than urinalysis… and unlike urine, can not be easily defeated.Random testing via on-site oral fluid is fast, provides results within 5-15 minutes, and averages $20 per test. It has the additional advantage of detecting current, vs. historical drug use. Oral fluid tests typically detect from within minutes of consumption up to 2-3 days for most drugs (for THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, the maximum is 24 hours.). Urine testing can not detect drugs for up to the first several hours and is only an indicator of historical drug use. Furthermore, for THC, detection can go back as far as 30 days. Do you as an employer really care what an otherwise dependable employee does at his/her home on the weekend? Do you even have a right to know?“This measure (on-site oral fluid drug testing) provides a cost effective on-the-job alternative to laboratory tests that can be costly and difficult to schedule."- Aiona, Lt. Governor, HawaiiAlso look at the true costs of urine-based random testing. In many cases our current program requires we send our employees off site for random testing. The cost involved includes not only the hourly labor rate, probably $50/hour with benefits, but the productivity loss also. The end result is that a typical off-site urine test is truly costing a job about $300 per test, and the effectiveness is questionable at best.On-site oral fluid based testing works.



Here are actual results from a contractor who switched from urine-based to oral fluid-based drug screening:













Where do we go from here?
Occupational health, safety, and risk management professionals must assist in driving change. This groups and only this group knows what truly happens every day on our job sites. At the end of day, they “get it”.It’s time for safety professionals to join with all constituencies to update current drug and alcohol free workplace programs to assure compliance and effectiveness.

It’s also time for the union skilled trades and contractors to again lead the charge in effecting change.It’s time to implement oral fluid-based testing techniques at a few “pilot sites” and demonstrate the advantage of effective drug testing programs vs. the status quo.

References:

2006 United States Department of Health – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Agency (SAMSHA) National Survey on Drug Use & Health (NHSDA)- Office of Applied Studies. (2007) Results from the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 07-4293, NSDUH Series H-32). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Peter N. Cholakis and Roger Bruce (July 2007) Drug Testing in the Workplace – A look at oral fluid-based testing. Professional Safety Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers, July 2007, 31-36

Schools Infested with Drugs

New Study: Schools Infested with Drugs - August 17, 2007
A New Study from the National Center on Addiction & Substance Abuse (CASA) suggests that US Schools are infested with drugs. The survey revealed that at least once a week on their school grounds, 31 percent of high school students (more than four million) and nine percent of middle school students (more than one million) see illegal drugs used, sold, students high and/or drunk. At least weekly, 17 percent of all high and middle school students (4.4 million) personally see classmates high on drugs at school.

Construction Safety / Drug Testing: Michigan AGC / MUST Drug Testing

The Need for Change: Drug Testing in Construction

Lynn A. Corlett, C.S.P.

We all know that a drug free workplace is a safe workplace and the Michigan union skilled trades and contractors were ahead of their time when the MUST drug screening program was implemented 16 years ago in 1991.
However, times change, the drugs of choice change and the numbers of ways to “beat” the tests have changed.
It’s time again for the union skilled trades and contractors to leap ahead of the national status quo.

Recently the States of Hawaii and Georgia passed legislation to improve safety and reduce workers compensation costs through the implementation of on-site oral fluid / saliva drug screening.
The construction industry played a key role in driving these changes, especially in Hawaii. Organized labor in particular, as well as contractors, owners, and insurers recognized the following:

Drug abuse in the construction sector is as bad, if not worse than ever,

Effective drug testing, especially random drug testing is required to truly manage workplace substance abuse,

Observed specimen collection, convenience, and low cost are mandatory to ensure compliance.

This article attempts to address ... from the construction industry’s point of view:
Why should every construction site drug test?
Where do we go from here?


Why drug test? Simple.
10% of employees aged 18 – 49 years abuse drugs (not including alcohol), the construction industry runs 2x-3x this rate. Over 50% of reportable job-site accidents linked to substance abuse.
It’s clear that employee safety and the corporate bottom line are sufficient reasons to implement a drug free workplace program.

A need for change.
Pre-employment drug testing has become an intelligence test. Access to the internet has made defeating drug tests an easy task. Workers are able to get information on how to “flush” their system; adulterate samples; and there are even products like the Whizinator, which uses synthetic urine undetectable by current drug testing methods, designed to defeat observed urine collection.
Random drug testing, post-incident and reasonable suspicion modes are required components of any comprehensive, effective safety program.
The goal of any drug / alcohol policy is deterrence vs. “catching” employees. Random testing has consistently demonstrated to be singularly effective in reducing on-the-job substance abuse.Any effective testing mode must involve direct observation of specimen collection. But observed urine collection is embarrassing and degrading to both the observed and the observer.Arguably, there are more instances of drug abusers defeating unobserved techniques, such as traditional urine-based testing, than there are “positives”. Just look at nationwide statistics for validation. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of drug abusers are employed.
Furthermore most drug testing (approx. 90%) involves traditional urine laboratory-based pre-employment testing. Oral fluid worksOral fluid tests are cheaper, faster and easier to use than urinalysis… and unlike urine, can not be easily defeated.

Random testing via on-site oral fluid is fast, provides results within 5-15 minutes, and averages $20 per test. It has the additional advantage of detecting current, vs. historical drug use. Oral fluid tests typically detect from within minutes of consumption up to 2-3 days for most drugs (for THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, the maximum is 24 hours.). Urine testing can not detect drugs for up to the first several hours and is only an indicator of historical drug use. Furthermore, for THC, detection can go back as far as 30 days.
Do you as an employer really care what an otherwise dependable employee does at his/her home on the weekend?
Do you even have a right to know?

Also look at the true costs of urine-based random testing. In many cases our current program requires we send our employees off site for random testing. The cost involved includes not only the hourly labor rate, probably $50/hour with benefits, but the productivity loss also. The end result is that a typical off-site urine test is truly costing a job about $300 per test, and the effectiveness is questionable at best.

On-site oral fluid based testing works. Multiple case studies have documented significant improvements in accident reduction due to switching from urine-based to oral fluid-based drug screening.

Where do we go from here?
Occupational health, safety, and risk management professionals must lead the charge to effect change. We know what truly happens every day on our job sites. At the end of day, we “get it”. It’s time for us to update our current drug and alcohol free workplace program.
It’s time for the Michigan union skilled trades and contractors to again lead the charge in effecting change.
It’s time to implement oral fluid-based testing techniques at a few “pilot sites” and demonstrate the advantage of effective drug testing programs vs. the status quo.

References:
2006 United States Department of Health – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Agency (SAMSHA) National Survey on Drug Use & Health (NHSDA)- Office of Applied Studies. (2007) Results from the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 07-4293, NSDUH Series H-32). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Peter N. Cholakis and Roger Bruce (July 2007) Drug Testing in the Workplace – A look at oral fluid-based testing. Professional Safety Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers, July 2007, 31-36.

Return on Investment - Drug Testing

Employee Theft and Fraud
- Average cost Per employee involved: $650
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates 30% of all business failures are due to employee theft and fraud.
- 70% of these crimes are committed by repeat offenders.
- Up to 70% of employee theft is drug related


Cost of Negligent Hiring
- Average cost per incident: $150,000
- Courts are holding companies liable in negligent hiring cases not only for what they knew about a new employee, but also what they should have known.


Employee Turnover]
- Average cost per incident: $32,000
- Turnover costs average 1.5 times a person’s yearly salary

Workplace Violence Estimated
- Average cost per incident: $1,000,000
- Violence at work is a serious problem, with homicide now the #2 cause of death in the workplace.
- Up to 70% of criminal arrests are drug related

Accidents / Worker's Comp.
- Average cost $10,000 + per incident
- 50%+ related to substance abuse

Employee Drug Testing

Why Most Drug Testing Programs DON'T WORK !

Effective Substance Abuse Management or The Importance of Deterrence ....

Pre-employment drug screening, using traditional lab-based urine tests, is the most widespread method of drug testing. Yet, data shows that this mode of testing is not effective at deterring workplace drug abuse. Why ....

Scheduled drug screening allows abusers to either temporarily stop using drugs or take advantage of the abundance of products available on the Internet to adulterate urine-based tests.

RANDOM DRUG TESTING via OBSERVED SPECIMEN COLLECION is Required!

Urine is clearly out of the question in a workplace environment... are YOU going to WATCH SOMEONE PEE INTO A CUP?

Oral fluid-based testing for drugs of abuse, however, enables corporations to perform random drug testing – conveniently, easily, and accurately.

The unpredictability of a random drug test virtually eliminates the possibility of an employee temporarily abstaining from drug use.
With observed collections, oral fluid testing removes any possibility of sample adulteration or substitution.

Oral fluid-based technology is changing the way companies drug test, allowing them to establish more effective drug free workplace programs to benefit employees and employers alike.

STATS support that Urine Drug Testing isn't the Solution
77% percent of drug abusers are employed
Nearly 10% of U.S. workers are abuse drugs
The average annual cost of drug abuse for U.S. businesses averages $10,000 per abuser and well over $140B nationwide.

Employees Reporting Drug Abuse Within Past Year by Industry
vs. 10% Average

Construction MORE
Manufacturing MORE
Hospitality / Lodging MORE
Retail MORE
Finance / Real Estate MORE

Why Drug Test?
The devastating impacts of drug abuse upon corporate safety, productivity, and the financial bottom-line are well documented. Up to 65% of on-the-job construction accidents can be related to substance abuse, while insurers note that drug and alcohol use is linked to 40% of construction fatalities. Drug abuse also negatively impacts employee turnover, absenteeism, workplace violence, inventory shrinkage/employee theft, and medical insurance utilization rates.

How can owners, employees, unions, and insurers, significantly improve job-site safety?
- Deterring and/or detecting on the job substance abuse. It is a first step to ensuring a safer, happier workplace environment, and one that just might just save a drug abuser’s life, or your own.



How should you drug test?
Manycorporations/contractors believe following “DOT Standards” is the most effective way to create a safer, drug free workplace. Unfortunately, this is a false, yet common belief.
DOT and other federally mandated drug testing regulations, are required in certain limited circumstances (truck drivers for specified classes of vehicles, vehicles carrying a certain number of passengers, etc.).
However, this traditional type of drug testing is over 20 years old and doesn’t test for many of today’s newer designer drugs. Furthermore, it is cumbersome to say the least, as it relies exclusively upon laboratory-based urine drug testing “Beating a test” by adding any of the hundreds of products readily available on Internet or substituting one’s specimen with drug-free urineor synthetic urine is commonplace. The practice has become so ineffective that thereare arguably more drug abuser’s “beating urine tests” than there are drug positives from this outdated method.

Drug Free Workplace Policy

A good place to start with any drug-free workplace program is to establish goals and objectives appropriate for your organization. These will help you create a foundation to write your workplace drug policy: a prerequisite to the implementation of any drug testing program.

When it comes to implementing a drug free workplace program, the documentation and impartial application of policy are critical. Not only do ad hoc approaches not work, they can cause serious employee moral and legal issues. Drug testing is a strategic corporate issue affecting everyone in the organization as well as corporate image. Therefore, company-wide involvement and “buy-in” are needed across all levels, including CEOs, CFOs, COOs, HR, Loss Prevention, Risk Management, Occupational Health and Safety, and employees. When implementing any drug testing program, it is recommended that the following areas be considered:·

Legal ramifications, a.k.a. “What rules apply”·

Type of testing: pre-employment, random, post accident, return-to-duty, reasonable suspicion/cause ·

Ease of use/administration of testing methods·

Immediacy of results

The following components are typically included in a comprehensive drug-free workplace program:

A written, signed drug testing policy

Drug tests: on-site as well as laboratory-based, using appropriate specimen types: oral fluid, urine, and hair

GC/LS/MS laboratory confirmatory testing

MRO (medical review officer) services

Employee assistance programs

Ongoing drug education and awareness programs

The problem with Pre-employment Testing ONLY:
While many companies have been practicing pre-employment testing for more than twenty years, it has been only marginally effective at reducing drugs in the workplace for two reasons: 1) Pre-employment testing, by definition, only addresses a small part of the workplace and 2) pre-employment testing ignores the fact that more than 77% of drug abusers are currently in the workforce.
Pre-employment testing can also be easily circumvented by drug abusers. Any type of testing with a previously scheduled date, allows applicants or employees that abuse drugs to employ a wide variety of methods to avoid detection as previously noted.

Random Testing
Random testing of the full workforce, while currently practiced by a small subset of corporate innovators, has proven to be the most effective deterrent to illicit drugs in the workplace.

Post-accident testing
Post-accident testing has become the norm for larger businesses, and most states allow employers to deny workers compensation benefits to employees who test positive for drugs of abuse.


Reasonable cause/suspicion testing
Reasonable cause/suspicion testing is helpful if employees and supervisors are trained to recognize the signs/ symptoms of drug abuse. Return-to-duty testing Return-to-duty testing is a means of enabling employees to come back to work, after testing positive to drugs of abuse. These employees usually complete an employee assistance program and/or similar substance abuse recovery program and undergo random testing.

Newer technologies are also important to consider
– A mini Case Study When one construction firm decided to institute a random drug testing program for all the company’s employees, they began researching drug testing tools. They discovered that many companies relied on lab-based urine testing. But, by nature, urine testing wouldn’t lend itself well to a construction environment. Collecting the sample would be troublesome, as laborers would have to be observed during the entire process to ensure no adulteration would take place. Furthermore, workers would have to leave the job site, possibly for hours at a time, for specimen collection. Plus, each test would cost more than $150-$200 including lost labor. Urine testing was determined to be cost-prohibitive. After further research, they discovered that oral-based drug testing eliminated many of the drawbacks of urine testing and offered more effective results. In fact oral-based testing was the only technology that would allow the company to implement a truly random drug testing program. By collecting just a swab of a person’s saliva oral fluid-based tests can detect drugs almost immediately after ingestion. Urine tests can only detect drugs six to nine hours after a drug has been ingested; enough time for the drug to metabolize show up in urine. Current oral-based testing tools were easy to administer and would allow the Director of Safety to do all the testing himself, with results ready in less than 15 minutes. The impacts on this construction firm were astounding. Its accident rate dropped to near zero, workers compensation premiums dropped 13%, and overall savings were calculated in the millions.

A Workplace Benefit
A carefully designed comprehensive drug-free workplace program is a clear benefit to everyone: employers, employees, unions, insurers, and owners/shareholders.
While zero tolerance relative to substance abuse is critical, however, programs can be non-punitive in nature.
The existence of a random drug testing program acts as a strong deterrent, however there will still be instances where employees are detected abusing drugs. When this occurs, it is recommended that the employee be offered an opportunity to participant in, and successfully complete, an employee assistance program. While not being allowed to work in a position that could negatively affect workplace safety during an interim period is a benefit, “firing” an employee, vs. temporary suspension, might not best serve anyone’s best interests. The company may be losing an otherwise excellent employee based upon the specific circumstances involved. Furthermore, fellow non-abusing employees are more likely to come forward and report incidents of drug abuse, if they know that fellow workers will be provided an opportunity to address the issue vs. being terminated.
Training employees, supervisors, and even families of the signs/symptoms of drug abuse may also be of significant benefit. How effective will an employee be if a family member has reached advanced stages of drug abuse?


The Future
Many, if not most, senior “C-level” professionals aren’t even aware of the significant threats posed by workplace drug abuse.

The following responses are typical to “Why don’t you drug test at XYQ corporation?” and demonstrate a cultural tendency to sweep the problem under the rug, and/or a lack of education/awareness:

“ We don’t have a drug abuse problem at OUR company”

“ Implementing a comprehensive drug-free workplace problem, inclusive of drug testing would be TOO HARD for our corporation.”

Unfortunately a catastrophic event is required to drive some corporation’s to effect change. Yet, more and more companies are beginning to take the advice of their safety and risk management teams, and pro-actively address workplace drug abuse.

Drug free-workplace programs and innovative technologies such as oral fluid-based random testing offer employers and employees a means to protect themselves, from this pervasive problem.

With multiple avenues available to help solve the problem of workplace drug abuse, the final question remains, “Why don’t you test?”

Prescription Drug Abuse #1 Problem in Schools and Workplace ?

Prescription Drug Abuse is a MAJOR PROBLEM

According to the 2006 annual report of the International Narcotics Control Board, (as well as recent SAMHSA survey results) the domestic and worldwide abuse of licit drugswill surpass that of illicit drug abuse (potentially excluding cannabis) in upcoming years. In fact, in middle schools and high schools the first drug a child abuses these days is likely a prescription drug such as a pain reliever such as OXYCONTIN or VICODIN (52%) vs. marijuana (48%) (SAMHSA Report). Worst yet …. is that the United States leads the way in its contribution to this international problem!