Issue

Should Minnesota's drug and alcohol testing statute be amended to allow employers to use other reliable means of testing, including the method set forth in the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations, that are the most accurate and consistent with today's science and are the least intrusive for employees?

Policy

Minnesota should amend its drug and alcohol testing statute to allow:

• Employers to utilize the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) regulations as an additional option. This permits the use of evidential breath testing devices (EBTs) for confirmatory alcohol tests.
• Federal, state or local officials to conduct alcohol tests if the testing conforms to appropriate federal, state or local requirements.
• Employers to conduct initial drug screening using onsite test devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. If the initial screen is positive, a confirmatory test and potential retest still must be completed at a certified laboratory.
• Employers to have a “zero tolerance” policy for drug and alcohol use at the workplace. Disciplinary action, pursuant to existing company policies, should be allowed after the first offense, confirmed by a certified laboratory.

Allowing these law changes does not require employers to change their current drug and alcohol testing programs. They can continue to use blood or urine tests and the certified labs that analyze these samples. Making these changes only gives employers additional options to tailor a drug and alcohol testing program to their specific needs.

Business Impact

Businesses that have drug and alcohol testing programs would likely reduce administrative costs by not having to administer two separate programs. Workplace safety also will improve if employees who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol are promptly removed. Changing Minnesota’s law will address several concerns with Minnesota's current drug and alcohol testing statute.

• Accuracy. Breath testing for alcohol using EBTs is considered as accurate as blood testing and more accurate than urine testing. However, due to Minnesota law, the least accurate method, urine analysis, is used most often because employers and employees want to avoid the use of needles and the possibility of infection. The accuracy of onsite drug tests is also comparable to initial laboratory tests and uses the same technology.
• Safety and timely results. The USDOT regulations, allowing properly trained federal, state or local officials to conduct tests, and onsite testing are better suited than Minnesota law to maintain workplace safety while respecting workers’ rights. Workers who test positive for drugs or alcohol can be promptly removed from the workplace because test results are known immediately. In addition, those who do not test positive can avoid the anxiety and possible suspension time that comes with a three- to four-day wait for test results.
• Consistency. Adding the USDOT regulations into Minnesota's workplace testing statute also will allow employers to implement the same drug and alcohol testing program companywide. Doing so will ensure that all employees, not just employees in the transportation sector, have access to the most accurate and state-of-the-art testing.