Drug Testing for Applicants

plhepner

Believe me, I've searched everywhere for advice on this topic but can't find a specific cite for it. I have always been in the school of thought that, for potential applicants, you send him or her to a certified lab for the test. That way it is also supervised and there is little potential for someone to try to alter the test. However, since I gave up my recruiting duties, my replacement is starting to test potential applicants on-site with no supervision. I think this is a bad idea.

Say, my cousin is about to be hired from a temporary worker to a permanent full-time employee. He confides in me that he didn't know he would be hired on so soon and he smoked weed over the weekend. He asks me to help him out. So, we both go in the bathroom, I take the screen, and it is read as a negative. No one ever knows the difference.

I also hear there are potential problems with drug screens that aren't conducted by certified labs but that's where I can't find anything to corroborrate that statement.

What are your opinions?

ACU Frank

If your HR department is falsifying drug tests, you have bigger problems than employees smoking weed.

sonny

It is early for me to be focused but I think that was a hypothetical.
Who is doing the on-site testing?
Our pre-employment drug testing is done as part of the physical and the employee goes to the apt. alone. Have had a couple who never showed for the physical when they got wind there was a drug test.
Probable cause/WC we take them.
It is our Drug Free Workplace policy/rules that mandate a certified lab, chain of custody etc.

sonny

PS. . Try doing a search Drug Free Work Place in. . your state

plhepner

Our policy doesn't necessarily dictate that we have to conduct the pre-employment drug screen at a certified lab, although I believe it should state such. Yes, we have a female recruiter who has chosen to use the post-accident drug screen cups as pre-employment drug screens. I was told that the company is "trying to hurry and hire people" so on-site drug screens are conducted. So, oh well. I give up.

khayes

After having numerous folks going out to purchase urine or having someone else test on their behalf or you-name-it-and-they've-figured-out-how-to-work-the-system, we have them go to a certified testing lab that handles the chain of custody, etc. in the proper manner.

Saves a lot of headaches in my opinion.

ACU Frank

I did on-site testing at a previous employer. It actually has a lot of advantages... including the element of surprise. I'm still not understanding what your objection is.

plhepner

My objection is that the PRE-EMPLOYMENT drug screen (not a POST-ACCIDENT) is conducted on-site and unsupervised. As previous posters have noted, it is easy to beat the system but it makes it a little more difficult when someone is five feet behind you watching (as is normalcy at the certified lab).

ACU Frank

What do you mean by unsupervised? Do you think testing labs do observed testing? (Because most don't.)

Because of the immediacy of the testing (aka, "element of surprise"), I had more candidates bail on the onsite test, and more candidates fail the onsite test, than with offsite testing. Having done both for extended periods of time, I can make the case that onsite testing is more reliable as a pre-employment screening tool.

schusid

Onsite testing is more reliable as a pre-employment screening tool. It is also great for random testing as well!

KD13

I used to do on site drug testing. I walked the person to the single stall bathroom without a sink and watched them go in alone. We had a sink outside of the bathroom so they could wash their hands afterwards. It was very simple and effecient.

Nevada HR

Our policy allows for a re-test of the split sample (at the employee's expense) if the results from the lab come back positive. So far none of our 'positives' have requested that.