Due to financial costs such also increased workers’ comp costs due to inebriated employees, and human costs, some states have decided to act. The state of Texas, for example,requires all restaurants with 15 or more employees who carry workers’ compensation to have a written drug policy in place. Source- Restaurant Operations - 4 Apr 2006 In the past 15 years, drug testing in the U.S. workplace has gone from ground zero to widespread employer acceptance. In 1983, less than 1 percent of employees were subject to drug testing. Today, about 49 percent of full-time workers are subject to some form of workplace drug testing, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Overall, restaurant employees constitute the second-highest group of illicit drug users in the United States. Comments like, “I can’t institute a drug-free policy because I’ll lose all my employees are mythical statements,” said Joseph Reilly, chairman of the board for the Drug & Alcohol Testing Industry Association. “They might lose about 5-10 percent of their employees, but those were the ones that they needed to lose anyway.” Implement a drug screening program now. A year from now, you’ll be glad you did. 1. Define your drug prevention policy. You can’t implement a policy until it’s defined. 2. Create drug screening parameters. Some states have laws regulating drug screening, so check for compliance. There are three primary scenarios for implementation: pre-employment testing, random testing, and post-incident testing. 3. Choose a testing method. Currently, there are three accurate methods for testing: urine testing, oral fluid testing, and hair testing. 4. Provide drug-use recognition training. A “train the trainer” program that gives managers tools for recognizing signs of drug use. 5. Raise awareness among employees. This takes implementation a step further, teaching employees the signs and dangers of abuse on the job. According to a recent Gallup poll, 96 percent of employees favor drug screening in at least some circumstances. The state of Texas, for example, requires all restaurants with 15 or more employees who carry workers’ compensation to have a written drug policy in place. Despite the evidence that employee drug use creates risks and costs, some , many employers elect not to test. According to a 2004 Society of Human Resource Management white paper, organizations in the service industry, including restaurants, have the lowest rate of testing. The paper revealed that only 41 percent of these organizations conduct regular testing. Additionally, the smaller the company—regardless of industry—the less likely testing is to occur. Only 29 percent of employers with 25 or fewer employees conduct testing. Common arguments against testing include not wanting to invade employees’ privacy by poking into personal time or by collecting specimens of bodily fluid, or concerns that testing breaks the trust between employees and employer and reduces productivity. Also, implementation costs cannot be overlooked. Typical testing can cost between $15-$100 per employee, depending upon whether the specimen is collected by the employer or a third party administrator (TPA), what substances are tested for, the company’s location and the technology used. Additional costs include time away from work for the employee and time spent by the employer’s representative in filling out paperwork and record keeping. Anti-testing voices also raise concerns about validity. “In the case of marijuana, a positive test absolutely does not mean the person was intoxicated at the time of the test,” said Bruce Mirkin, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. “Detectable traces of THC or its metabolites are sometimes found in urine days or even weeks after any psychoactive effects have worn off.” Some civil rights groups have declared rights violations, however, drug testing is legal in every U.S. state. Rights can only be violated when policies are improperly established and/or inconsistently administered. It is critical to have a written policy in place and to follow that policy consistently. | 
