occuscreen

Whizzinator Creator Goes to Jail

pamelam — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:10:44 +0000

A California man who spent nearly six years in prison for a 1980s marijuana-trafficking conviction was sentenced to six months in federal prison for running a company that sold a male prosthetic called the Whizzinator that helped men cheat on drug tests. This prosthetic device was used for passing an ‘observed’ DOT drug screen.

Gerald W. Wills, 67, of Los Angeles, sold the device, along with a synthetic urine.

He and his partner pleaded guilty in 2008 to conspiracy to sell drug paraphernalia and conspiracy to defraud the United States, because the products were specifically marketed to beat federal drug tests.

“I fully understand I was a criminal and took full responsibility for my actions,” Catalano told the court. He said he panicked in September 2008 when a Metrolink commuter train crashed head-on into a freight train in Chatworth, California, killing 25 people, realizing the train’s engineer may have used his products to pass the DOT test. “I’m more sorry for my actions than I could ever say.”
Drugs, however, were not a factor in the crash. Instead the engineer was distracted by text messaging.

I know in our office, we frequently made fun of the Whizzinator, and couldn’t believe such a product existed. We are all happy that there were consequences, and the seriousness of illegally passing a drug test have been brought to light by this case.

Fake Urine Causing Real Threats to Accurate Drug Screening

pamelam — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:30:08 +0000

Personally, I find it hard to believe, but it’s unfortunately true. Fake urine is causing problems with drug testing, particularly in the construction industry.

Just last week The Oregonian published an article called on this topic. (You can read the entire article here http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2010/06/finding_fake_urine_a_real_chal.html).

The point of the article was that lots of people are using synthetic urine, bought online or in smoke shops. They most often contain the fake specimen somewhere on their body to sneak it in at body temperature, and surreptitiously fill the specimen cup. “But we have witnessed collections!” you say? See the related article on The Whizzinator prosthetic.

So why can’t labs tell if urine is fake or real? Well, in most cases they can, but it is a complex process to not just suspect urine isn’t real (because of color, scent, etc) but to prove it. To make things more difficult, each time the labs add a specific chemical test to confirm the urine isn’t fake, the fake urine manufacturers just add that chemical to the sample, leaving the labs to scramble for a new substance to add to the test for proof that the urine is real, and human.

So, what is an employer to do?

Here are a few suggestions:

1) Use a SAMHSA certified lab. You want the laboratory to be as up-to-date as possible, and keeping up with the current changes and challenges. Trying a different lab than you have been using could get you different results.

2) Don’t use instant test cups. That is going to be your least likely way of catching fake urine.

3) Try switching to a lab-analyzed (not instant) oral fluids test such as Intercept by Orasure. This is an onsite witnessed collection of saliva, and extremely difficult to adulterate. You won’t get substitutions or dilute specimens with oral fluids. For more information on this product, here is a link. http://www.occuscreen.com/downloads/Intercept-Occuscreen_Brochure.pdf

There are always going to be some employees that will do anything to pass a drug screen, besides avoiding drugs. To keep your organization safe and drug-free, you might have to make some changes in your drug screening practices.

Oregon Supreme Court: Employers Are Not Required to Accommodate Medical Marijuana

pamelam — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:35:02 +0000

On April 14th,　the　Oregon Supreme Court conclusively ruled that employers are not required to accommodate the use of medical marijuana in the workplace, ending years of confusion on this issue.

According to an article from Stoel Rives, the Oregon Supreme Court, on appeal, reversed the decisions of the trial judge and the Court of Appeals, and reversed the Oregon Court of Appeals’ decision in Washburn. (A prior Oregon Court of Appeals case – Washburn Vs. Columbia Forest Products – had held that employers do have a duty to accommodate the use of medical marijuana by a disabled employee. )

The Supreme Court held that employers do not have to accommodate employees’ use of illegal drugs. Because marijuana—medical or otherwise—is illegal under federal law, employers are not required to accommodate its use under any circumstance.

Glad that is settled … for now!

California Law Update on Screening for Sex Offenders

pamelam — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:52:28 +0000

Yes, you can!

A California appeals court ruled that, under the First Amendment, an employment-screening service could access the state’s database of registered sex offenders (Megan’s Law List) and pass that information on to its clients. The law establishing the website prohibits the use of the posted information for purposes related to employment.

New Oregon Law on Credit Checks

pamelam — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:43:29 +0000

It’s official!

As several states have before, on March 29, 2010, Oregon Governor Kulongoski signed legislation (SB1045) that specifically prohibits employers from using credit history inmaking hiring, discharge, promotion, and compensation decisions unless the applicant or employee is given advanced written notice and the credit history is substantially related to the position sought. The legislation provides additional exceptions for financial institutions and public safety offices.

Employers, make sure you can explain that there is the credit report is substantially related to the job, before requesting the report.

Credit Check update

pamelam — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:19:51 +0000

Remember the last blog about Credit Checks and the government looking towards restricting them for pre-employment screening? Well, Oregon and 15 other states have proposed bills to ban credit checks on most job applicants, unless the check is “substantially related” to job duties, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Hawaii and Washington already have such bans in place.

In fact, the Oregon bill has passed, but has not yet been signed into law by the Governor, although it likely will be. The bill would exempt banks, credit unions and law employment agencies. It would also exempt employers if the credit information is relevant to the job and the employer discloses the check to the applicant. ‘Relevant to the job’ is not too clear, although it would likely include employees in finances or accounting, and perhaps those handling money.

To be safe, a best practice would be to only check the credit of those employees with job-related duties involving money. Also, be sure to follow your particular state guidelines.

Employment Screening by iPhone App?

pamelam — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:26:47 +0000

In the January 20th PC World, and iPhone app was announced that provides background screening for individuals and employers. Employers doing background checks by iPhone?

The iPhone background check app is provided by a CRA (consumer reporting agency) which means that the process is regulated by the Fair Credit Reporting Agency.

According to the FCRA:

If information from a CRA is used for employment purposes, the user has specific duties, which are set forth in Section 604(b) of the FCRA. The user must:

-Make a clear and conspicuous written disclosure to the consumer before the report is obtained, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained.

-Obtain prior written authorization from the consumer.

-Certify to the CRA that the above steps have been followed, that the information being obtained will not be used in violation of any federal or state equal opportunity law or regulation, and that , if any adverse action is to be taken on the consumer report, a copy of the report and a summary of the consumer’s rights will be provided to the consumer.

Not sure how you could manage that on an iPhone. Seriously, if you want to run a check on the guy you just met in the bar, go ahead and use your iPhone. If you are an employer and want legally defensible, up-to-date, comprehensive employment screening, don’t take risks with your organization.

Hire a third party background check provider that will comply with the FCRA and provide county criminal courthouse record checks, as well as database records. You want to make sure you handle everything in a legally defensible manner.

Call me with questions! 888-833-5304

Employment Credit Checks? No Simple Answer…

pamelam — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:09:48 +0000

You may have heard that Congress is considering blocking employer access to credit report data. Many feel that denying employment due to credit problems, when the candidate is otherwise qualified, is unfair, particularly on the heels of a recession.

On the other hand, hiring without due diligence can place you in danger of a negligent hiring lawsuit. Plus, employers often need help in making a decision when they are on the fence about someone, or when they have a number of qualified candidates. And in some cases, this particular information might be very helpful.

However, there remains a lot of ambivalence nationwide regarding credit reports for employment screening. In fact, California tried to pass a law in October, 2009 to severely limit credit checks by employers, but the governor vetoed it in the end.

So, what does an employer do? The best advice at this point, (from our general counsel – Tamsen Leachman of Dunn Carney, Portland) is this:

If you are running a credit check, make sure the position you are hiring for has job duties directly related to finances, cash-handling or access to cash, accounts or credit and that you have a valid, job-related reason for the check.

There will certainly be updates as Congress makes a decision. Please check with us if you have questions. 888-833-5304 or pamelam@occuscreen.com

Quest Study: Down Trend in Cocaine and Meth Use

pamelam — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:44:48 +0000

Here is some information from Quest Diagnostics on the downward trend of positive methamphetamine and cocaine positive results for employers, from 2005 to the first half of 2009. Keep screening, Employers… It appears to be working!

“MADISON, NJ, November 20, 2009 New data released today by Quest Diagnostics Incorporated (NYSE: DGX), the nation’s leading provider of employment-related drug testing services, reveal that drug testing of hair specimens from employees and job applicants in the general U.S. workforce has tracked sharp downward trends in cocaine and methamphetamine use from 2005 to the first half of 2009 that mirror similar drops shown by urine testing. Testing of urine specimens can detect a single instance of drug use in the prior one to three days, while hair testing can detect a pattern of repetitive use over a period of up to 90 days.

Hair and urine test data show that declines in cocaine use have been dramatic since 2005, with hair tracking a 36 percent drop , and urine tracking a 57 percent drop. A hair data decline of 55 percent in methamphetamine positivity rates, validate the decline seen in urine test data, which fell 64 percent.”

Remember, the differences in the rates of decline is because urine testing will show recent and even one-time use, while hair follicle testing will show past patterns of abuse, but not current or one-time use.

Want more information on how to lower the potential for drug abuse in your company? Call us at 888-833-8304 or email me at pamelam@occuscreen.com.

Why Should Employers Drug Screen? Here Are Some Facts!

pamelam — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:28:13 +0000

Acording to the Subtance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration:

77% of illegal drug users are employed. Are you employing them? If so, what does this mean for you?

Employees who use illegal drugs cost their employers about twice as much in medical claims as non-users.
Employees who use illegal drugs are 3.6 times more likelty to be involved in a workplace accident, and 5 time more likely to file a worker’s comp claim.
Employees who use illegal drugs are 2.2 times more likely to request early dismissal or time off, 2.5 times more likely to have absences of eight days or more, and 3 times more likely to be late for work.
Up to 40% of industrial fatalities and 47% of industrial injuries can be linked to alcohol use and alcoholism.

Employing drug users simply costs employers money. In fact, alcohol drug use costs U.S employers roughly $81 billion in lost productivity per year.

Drug screening employers is a small investment, for a very large return. Please contact us at 888-833-5304 if you would like to talk about your drug screening program.

Next up: Where are the drug users working?