Drug Testing in the Workplace

By: Bob Barrow
Date: 2/1/2008

Apart from the usual requirements, applying for a job these days has become a bit more complex. Thanks to the availability of drugs, and the continuing temptation to use them, job applicants and career-minded individuals accept that, along with proof of a good education and heaven-bound references, they will also need to undergo the tedious (and embarrassing) chore of using the little plastic lidded container with their name on it. Even though the requirement has become status quo, does it really work? How reliable is it to weed out the people who are a serious detriment to the work place environment?

A high percentage of drug users over the age of 18 are employed either full or part time and cost their employers roughly twice as much in medical insurance and workers' compensation as their drug free counterparts. Some states allow an employer to deny or lower workers' compensation payments if alcohol or drugs are involved in an injury. In an effort to promote drug free workplaces, some states have instituted a premium reduction for companies that have implemented regulations governing a drug free workplace, these include a written substance abuse policy that is distributed to all employees, they conduct abuse testing, and provide employee assistance programs for those who test positive for alcohol or drugs. Some states even provide legal protection to employers when they establish drug and alcohol testing programs.

Drug testing is not the panacea for the perils of drug taking. The hard-core drug takers most definitely will be caught, eventually...but they probably are not serious contenders in the job marketplace anyway. Many less hard-core, but more than social, drug abusers have learned to fool the test. The percentage of drug test cheating has prompted some testing companies to check routinely for adulterants or urine cleansers. In addition, it has been rumored that the serious 'cheaters' can now purchase clean freeze-dried urine.

Some employers enjoy a false sense of security from the prescreening process and actually still believe that the test is foolproof! The real test, however, appears to be the loss of productivity that is directly related to employee drug use. It is no accident that, as (drug-use) test results improve, drug test cheating is also on the rise.

Nancy Reagan's campaign, "Just Say No!," back in the 1980s attracted a lot of attention to the dangers of drugs to our children. The government took the position that certain public safety roles - railroad engineers and airline pilots for example, should be drug tested.

Is drug testing still a deterrent? Even though, the volatile issues regarding the War on Drugs were fueled by claims made by drug testing companies, other companies, who came out with additives of their own, that made drug tests ineffective with their "undetectable" additives, soon foiled them.

Drug testing hit its all-time high in 1996 and has experienced a steady decline since that time. It is thought that the tight labor market caused some employers to relax their pre-employment requirements.

Although, opponents of drug testing maintained that it should be considered 'unreasonable search," and that it violated the United States Constitution's Fourth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in favor of drug testing in many instances.

The hot button, known as drug testing, has many proponents and opponents -some, have been on both sides of the argument at different times. There seems to be only one conclusion: There will always be at least two sides to this argument with many opinions and conditions. The way I see it, whether you agree with it or not:

•Take out the politics and emotion of the thing.

•It is a fact that drugs and alcohol are a serious detriment, not only in our workplaces but also in our schools and homes.

•Drug testing should not have been allowed to open up a legal opportunity for companies seeking, for monetary gain only, a remedy to thwart drug-use detection.

On the minus side of drug testing, many companies who relied on pre-employment testing scaled back, or relocated to off-site, their employee assistance programs (EAP). These programs were designed to recognize and treat the serious signs of alcohol and drug abuse. Now, managers are less likely to be well trained in recognizing the telltale signs, which would, formerly, have prompted them to refer employees to an employee assistance program. Somehow the balance must be made to secure a safe working environment while, at the same time, preserve employees privacy.

If you are interested in receiving a state by state list of drug testing regulations, please contact Bob Barrow, principal of the Barrow Group, LLC. He may be reached at (800) 774-4798 or by email bbarrow@barrowgroup.com