Comstock's magazine 1217 - December 2017 | Page 31

What I would recommend is in the case of a negative-dilute drug test, you in- form the candidate and offer retesting of the hair follicle — a much more accurate test — at his expense. You promise that if he passes you will reimburse him for the cost, and then do so. A candidate who has been using illegal drugs knows he’ll fail a hair test and will back out at this point. An innocent candidate will take you up on the test. If the candidate passes, the cost of a hair follicle test is significantly cheaper than the cost of finding a new candidate. So, it’s well worth it. WHAT IS YOUR GOAL IN TESTING? As long as I have your attention, let’s talk about your goals in drug testing. If your candidates will drive trucks, have access to narcotics or have another responsibil- ity that could spell disaster if they were even tempted to use illegal drugs, then you should absolutely be testing for drug use. Even though recreational marijuana is legal in California, employers can still choose to test for it and maintain a drug- free workforce. (Keep in mind, federal law still prohibits marijuana usage, so consume at your own risk.) But, if your employees will sit behind a computer all day, drug use may not be worth your time, effort and expense to test. In fact, even the FBI and Secret Ser- vice don’t require hires to have a history perfectly clean of drug use. (You can’t, of course, be an active user.) Many of your competitors have a simple ‘don’t ask, don’t tell policy’ when it comes to drugs. If you’re competing with these firms for candidates, your strict policies will limit your candidate pool. That’s fine if it’s important to you — and to a lot of people it is important. There are definite problems with drug- using employees. If they stop using a substance purely recreationally and be- come addicted, it can result in serious problems in their lives, which can trans- fer to your business. Additionally, the Americans with Disabilities Act considers drug addic- tion a legitimate disability, which means you’ll need to provide a reasonable ac- commodation for an addicted employ- ee. This can mean you must hold a job for someone who is going through drug treatment. It does not, however, mean you have to keep an active drug user on the payroll. Another problem you can run into with a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ drug policy is that you need to be extra careful that you’re not discriminating on the basis of race. Employee A is acting funny so you send him for a drug test. Employee B is acting funny, but you know he’s going through a rough break up, so you let it go. You might be logical in your assump- tions, but if Employee A is black and Employee B is white, you could have to defend against allegations of racial dis- crimination. So, if you want to test for drugs, figure out before you send someone to the lab how you will proceed with a negative- dilute sample — then treat all candi- dates the same. If you want to implement testing on active employees, set a policy for what will and will not result from a failed or inconclusive drug test. Don’t ever decide on the fly — that sets you up for problems. Navigating drug policy isn’t easy. Make sure your policies fulfill your busi- ness needs. n Suzanne Lucas spent 10 years in corpo- rate human resources, where she hired, fired, managed the numbers and double- checked with the lawyers. On Twitter @RealEvilHRLady. Have a burning HR question? Email it to: [email protected]. December 2017 | comstocksmag.com 31