Employee Drug Testing: Aalberts and Walker Revisited
重新审视了Aalberts和Walker关于员工药物检测的讨论，指出EMIT测试的假阳性率高且不可靠，小企业主常因成本省略确认测试，面临法律风险，并强调了监管链的重要性。
EMPLOYEE DRUG TESTING: AALBERTS AND WALKER REVISITED In discussing types of drug tests, Aalberts and Walker (1988) gave a succinct description of widely used enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique (EMIT) test. According to Bible (1987), EMIT is most used drug screening test, and also has the greatest potential for inaccuracy. To be specific, in drug testing an inverse relationship exists between cost of test and accuracy (Imwinkelried 1987). Aalberts and Walker conceded EMIT is relatively inexpensive yet often inaccurate; this relationship needs to be emphasized to a small business owner. A specific problem with EMIT, as well as even most expensive drug tests, is number of false positives which occur any time an employee is incorrectly identified as being a drug user (Bible 1987, Panner and Christakis 1986, Veglahn 1988). Aalberts and Walker said only that with EMIT percentage of false positives is 5 to 20 percent. However, error rates of 25 percent to 97 percent have been widely reported in field studies of commonly used broad-spectrum tests (Bible 1988, Muczyk and Heshizer 1988, Rothman 1988). False positives can occur with EMIT if employee has ingested any of following: poppy seeds, ibuprofen, Midol or Dristan, prescription antibiotic amoxicillin, quinine water, aspirin, or codeine (Bible 1987, Lowell 1988, Wrich 1988). A pertinent point omitted by Aalberts and Walker is that EMIT is so unreliable that termination of employees based solely on EMIT results has been ruled to be unreasonable, thus opening small business owner to possibility of a wrongful discharge lawsuit (Bible 1987, Reichenberg 1988). Admittedly, if EMIT is followed by a confirmatory test, accuracy rate is over 99 percent (Flannery 1987, Verespej 1988). However, a point overlooked by Aalberts and Walker is tendency of small business owners to omit expensive confirmatory tests, as experts estimate each analysis may cost from $100 (Bible 1987) to as much as $150 (Imwinkelried 1987). However, unconfirmed drug detection tests are not legally defensible (Hoyt et al. 1987, Veglahn 1988), nor are they reliable as measures of drug intoxication (Bible 1987, Masters 1988, Reichenberg 1988). These confirmation tests are necessary, as courts will reinstate with back pay an employee who was dismissed for testing positive on an initial test unless a confirmatory test is conducted (Muczk and Heshizer 1988). Therefore, several states are now requiring expensive confirmatory testing (Reichenberg 1988). Heshizer and Muczyk (1988) also emphasized need for confirmatory tests, and discussed a case in which an unconfirmed drug test was used as basis for an employee discharge. In that case, employee was awarded $200,000 for defamation. The cost of drug testing even without a confirmatory test may be prohibitive for a small business. For a small business of 50 employees who are tested twice a year, annual costs can exceed $4,000 (Rosen 1987). This does not take into account costly confirmation tests. If test is challenged, expert testimony regarding test and laboratory procedures will cost from under $1,000 to over $6,000; these figures do not include legal fees but only costs relevant to testing laboratory (Hoyt et al. 1987). CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY: ADMINISTRATIVE CONCERNS Aalberts and Walker discussed in one paragraph on page 55 concern of chain of custody. The legal requirement of chain of custody ... refers to ability to trace a sample from time it is provided by employee or job applicant through all steps in testing and analysis process (Rosen 1987). This legal requirement is viewed by many employees as a costly and humiliating requirement. However, if chain of custody is not adequately documented, an employee discharge may be overturned by an arbitrator (Veglahn 1988). …