|
 Pre-employment drug
testing
By Walt Roberts
ASSIST EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT
At the last Private Security Bureau Commission meeting Dec. 6, 2007, the subject of pre-employment drug screening of all employees regulated under the agency was discussed.
Obviously it was met with opposition from the ASSIST board. In an industry that has a 360 percent turnover rate the cost to business would be staggering. At a cost of $6 per test (if you can find a $6 test) added to registration, finger printing, uniform and training fees, and other associated costs of hiring ... is the government trying to put us out of business.
We are not a government entity. We are private business, entrepreneurs and in many cases small businesses that walk the line between being in business or being unemployed. Any additional state mandated cost could be a burden that results in a small business failure.
In my experience, drug screening is both customer and insurance driven. None of us wants a security officer, locksmith, alarm installer or private investigator working that is under the influence. However, what many do not realize is that I could not find an incident where a security officer in Texas was injured or caused an injury due to the fact that he or she was on drugs. We would be out of business in an instant if a company had the reputation of not doing its due diligence of screening employees for the use of narcotics.
Some say the tests are a deterrent, but most of us know that the only drug that stays in the system more than a few days is marijuana. Therefore, that’s one drug out of many.
How do we resolve this dilemma? I am not sure. However, I’m never happy with government restrictions or mandates. In Texas, we are a profession that strives for volunteer compliance. Our main concern is the unlicensed unsuried operator. Having another reason for investigator audits is not something any of us want to see.
Here are some facts and statements from the National Academy of Sciences. There seems to be no limit to the imaginative methods used by some drug users to avoid detection. The preventative effects of drug testing have never been adequately demonstrated. There is, as of yet, no conclusive scientific evidence from properly controlled studies that employment drug testing programs widely discourage drug use or encourage rehabilitation.
It cannot be overemphasized that without confirmatory testing and careful medical review, treating the results of urine and other screening measures as evidence of drug use is unacceptable and scientifically indefensible.
Poppy seeds, which are commonly used in bagels and other baked foods often contain sufficient amounts of morphine to cause a detectable concentrations of morphine. The widely used Vicks inhaler is also alleged to be the cause of methamphines, amphetamine or both during some screening. In addition to these reports and facts the majority of medical facilities refer too many of the current in-house employer drug screening methods as “junk science” because they are just not reliable.
Now we were basically told either something has to be done at the commission level or the next legislature would take it up. Well, I am not sure that worries me as much as some. It is my understanding that police departments are allowed to write their own policy because the legislature knows each department is faced with different circumstances same as private business. As this issue evolves, I will try to keep you updated.
To reach Walt Roberts, call (469) 533-3311 or e-mail evppresident@assisttexas.org.
|
