There are numerous reasons why a workplace or school may choose to implement a drug testing regime. Aside from the more obvious reasons, like them being illegal, there are serious aspects of safety that these places need to consider to keep their employees and reputation safe from physical and reputational harm. But knowing when a drug test might be a necessity or something that could alienate valued team members can quickly become a situation rife with misunderstanding if not handled with care. Throughout this post, we’re going to explore when testing shifts from “optional” to “necessary.”
High-Stakes Environments: Safety-Sensitive Positions
In certain roles and occupations, drug testing isn’t merely a matter of policy but also of public safety. For occupations such as transportation, healthcare, and those where employees will operate heavy machinery, many companies and organizations will opt for an oral fluid drug testing service that provides a quick and reliable result that they can use to either give the employee the all clear or move on to whatever disciplinary action for a failed test, based on company policy. For jobs that are governed by national law and regulations, it may also be mandated by the state for companies to carry out such tests at set intervals throughout their employees’ careers, with the DOT (Department of Transportation) perhaps being the most obvious example of such an obligation.
Common Scenarios For Testing
In almost all situations, testing will fall into four distinct categories, with each having a differing “necessity” threshold.
| Testing type | When it’s necessary | Key goals |
| Pre-employment | It is typically a precondition of some workplaces to perform a drug test after a conditional offer of employment has been made. | The idea here is to mitigate risk before a candidate has been formally hired, when it could be more challenging to remove them. |
| Post-accident | It is common for some workplaces to perform a test in the aftermath of an accident, regardless of whether it caused injury or not. | Post-accident drug testing is performed to check if drugs were part of or wholly responsible for the accident in the first place. It might also be a requirement of an insurance policy to conduct these tests. |
| Reasonable suspicion | As with any kind of reasonable suspicion, it behooves a company to conduct testing based on employee actions that could be deemed out of the ordinary. | Most companies want to nip an issue in the bud before it might spiral into something more serious, and if they believe an employee is taking drugs, an official test can shed light on the matter. |
| Random | Those operating within high-risk roles are far more likely to find themselves being randomly tested. | Random testing is usually performed as part of an ongoing deterrence aimed at making the idea of taking drugs too dangerous to even entertain. |
The “Reasonable Suspicion” Threshold
In the previous table, we noted one of the four categories as a reasonable suspension. But the reality is that this term can be fraught with ambiguity, and if a manager plays their hand wrong, it could lead to accusations of workplace harassment that, in extreme cases, could lead to an industrial tribunal. For any manager to be able to reasonably accuse a member of staff of taking drugs and to request that they submit to a test, they need to be sure that certain criteria are fulfilled:
- Physical indicators: Although not all drugs will have an outward effect on a person, most will likely cause some form of physical impairment. These can range from bloodshot eyes to slurred speech. But to be 100% certain, these should be paired up with other behavioral indicators.
- Behavioral indicators: Sudden drops in performance, erratic behavior, or unexplained and undocumented absences can all be reasons to request that an individual submit for a test.
- The documentation rule: In order to move from the “suspecting” stage to a formal request for a test, all interactions must be documented. Because there are numerous reasons for the previous two indicators, management cannot simply rely on a gut feeling to perform such a sensitive procedure without a particular amount of certainty.
When Testing Is Not Necessary (Or Productive For That Matter)
Throughout this post, we’ve mostly focused on roles where an individual might be operating machinery that could harm themself or others if impaired or who have a duty of care to others. However, not all roles require mandatory drug testing and can actually have inverse results to what a manager might desire from opting to go down that route. Over- or unnecessary testing can decrease employee morale and make it seem as though management is simply “out to get them” or possibly looking for legitimate ways to fire them without the need to offer redundancy payment, etc.
In many occupations, drug testing isn’t just an action that is used to keep employees on their feet but an act that is critical to ensure that people remain safe from harm. When a fair policy is enacted, and reasonable suspicion is well-documented and based on genuine concern, drug testing can keep workplaces safe and ensure a higher level of morale throughout the organization.
Written by lea@sapurex.com
