Drug Testing in the Workplace

Emily DeCoster

Psych 456

4-28-03

Introduction

Drug and alcohol abuse cost industry an estimated $40 billion a year in low productivity, on-the-job accidents, absenteeism, theft of company property, and poor quality products (Cowan, 1987). Clearly, something must be done. However, when drug testing is implemented, it raises many concerns, such as the breach of trust between company and employee, the invasion of privacy, and the reliability of such tests. There are many valid points made by both supporters of the practice and by those who are against it. In this paper, I will first discuss the different methods of testing and the different reasons they are used, along with the ramifications of testing positive. Then, I will briefly discuss the main arguments of each side. Finally, I will discuss strategies to implement effective, acceptable drug testing in America.

Types of Tests

There are five main ways to determine if an employee is using drugs (Arthur & Doverspike, 1997). Biochemical tests are the most common; these include urinalysis, blood and saliva analysis, and hair analysis. Depending on the method used, they can provide information on a wide range of drugs over a broad period, from 8-12 hours for alcohol to over a month for marijuana. However, they cannot detect many key factors, such as whether the person is still abusing drugs, currently under the influence, or is impaired to the point of not being able to function properly (Cowan). Additionally, the results can be falsely positive, due to lab mistakes or harmless substances like poppy seeds or cold medicine, or falsely negative, when another person's urine is substituted or a detox product is used before the testing begins (Jardine-Tweedie & Wright, 1998).

A second method of testing is observational, including physiological indicators (e.g., pupil dilation), performance tests, and drug recognition experts. These tactics can lead to the need for a drug test to take place, rather than just random testing.

A less reliable method includes self-report measures, either overt and direct or covert and indirect. This method has the same problems as a theft or honesty test given to employees; the answers are fairly obvious, as is the outcome if the person is found to be a thief or dishonest. The same applies to questions about drug abuse, especially in a pre-employment setting (Arthur & Doverspike).

Background investigations provide another way to determine if an employee is abusing drugs. This involves checking past records of drug abuse, reasons for termination by previous employers, and participation in drug rehabilitation programs. However, it can be both costly and time-consuming. There are also legal ramifications and privacy issues associated with this.

The last method is polygraph testing, which is not always reliable. Like the self-report measures, people could lie their way through the test, although this may be difficult if they are currently under the influence. This method is not used very frequently, especially since other, more accurate measures (such as biochemical tests) have gained in popularity, and courts repeatedly throw out polygraph results.

When to Test

There are many reasons to test for drugs: pre-employment screening, on a random or periodic basis (mass testing), probable cause or reasonable suspicion, return from treatment or rehabilitation, transfer to a new position, on a voluntary basis, and fitness for duty (Cowan; Jardine-Tweedie & Wright). Testing takes place in five general contexts: the workplace, law enforcement/criminal justice settings (e.g., breathalyzer tests), health care facilities (e.g., substance abuse treatment programs), screening for the insurance agency, and organized athletic competitions at the professional or collegiate level (Fendrich & Kim, 2002).

One of the most common reasons for a drug test is pre-employment screening. It is seen as a way to screen potential employees in order to avoid hiring problematic people or drug-free workers. There are many ways for applicants to get around this, which will be discussed in the section on the disadvantages of testing.

The next big category is mass testing, which can be done one of several ways. One is randomly, which is when employees are not aware when or how frequently they will be tested. Similar to this is a periodic basis, when employees have a more definite idea of when the testing will be.

Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are two of the most accepted reasons for testing. They are very similar. Probable cause is used as justification after a work accident or when an employee has obvious behavioral symptoms. Reasonable suspicion is cited when less obvious yet still suspicious behavior is occurring, such as high absenteeism or lateness (Jardine-Tweedie & Wright).

Testing after returning from treatment or rehabilitation is an obvious reason, especially if the company's policy is for a drug or alcohol abuser to seek help instead of dismissal. This is a reason to which most people would not object.

Being transferred or promoted merits testing, mainly on the basis that the company has invested a lot in the individual. A negative test will confirm the belief that the decision to move someone was the right thing.

Testing on a voluntary basis is useful because it draws the employee into the process without violating the trust between him and the company. However, most drug abusers would either not willingly submit to screening or find ways to get around it.

Fitness for duty is especially important in fields that are around the public, where a bad performance can lead to either injury or death. This includes not only fields like hospital workers and taxi drivers, but also construction and assembly line workers, where shoddy products could result in injuries to the general public.

In Support of Drug Testing

In 1985, drug and alcohol abuse cost $50.7 billion in worker's compensation and insurance losses. Half of all homicides and ¼ of all suicides are alcohol related. Drug and alcohol abuse have been correlated with domestic and sexual violence and child sexual abuse, thereby contributing to the costs of the criminal justice system. In Texas, over 80% of the offenders in the Texas Department of Corrections have a history of alcohol and/or drug abuse (Cowan).

Obviously drug and alcohol abuse have profound effects on the economy and society as well as on the lives of the abusers and their immediate circle of family, friends, and coworkers. Therefore, there exists a widespread belief that any effort made to eradicate the problem would be a benefit to society. The "social good" theory supporters view testing as "inherently reasonable," rather than intrusive or unnecessary (Arthur & Doverspike).

A drug-free workplace is important because of the company's potential loss. It has been estimated that a chemically dependent employee is usually less than 75% effective, compared to the average, non-abusing employee (Butler, 1993).

Safety is a factor too, both with the public and in the workplace. For example, when an employee us under the influence of drugs, alcohol, stress, or fatigue, the potential for error increases tenfold (Leonard, 1996). In a study exploring trends related to the acceptance of drug testing, it was found that approval in safety sensitive occupations was at 95%, followed by healthcare workers at 92% (Fendrich & Kim).

In addition, drug testing can be used as a deterrent of substance abuse if a positive test results in termination or denial of employment. It can also be used as a tool to get abusers the help they need when the positive test results in participation in a rehabilitation program.

Finally, an argument for drug testing is that it reduces the legal liability of a company for any harm to the public as a result of an employee-caused accident (Solomon & Uspich, 1993). However, this reason should not be the most important reason for administering drug tests.

Yes, But…

There are many problems with drug testing, which fit into five categories: practical, legal, testing technology, laboratory accuracy, and ethical, although some can be placed in multiple categories (Cowan, Jardine-Tweedie & Wright).

One of the main problems is that most people are not drug users. For those that are, quite often it is only recreational and not to the extent that it impairs job performance. Testing is a rather intrusive and expensive program to only catch a small percentage of people.

The next problem is related to the preceding one. Depending on the type of drug and the threshold being used, a test can detect traces up to a month later. This is problematic because the test assumes that an individual is either a user or not; there is no middle ground (Arthur & Doverspike). However, potential employees who are clean at when they are hired may develop a substance abuse problem later, and vice versa.

Other problems are possible constitutional or other legal violations. These include the 4th Amendment, which deals with probable cause and unreasonable search and seizure; the 5th and 14th Amendments, which both deal with due process; and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which further strengthened the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, under which recovering drug addicts and alcoholics are covered. However, current users are not included. The different legal standards for private and public sectors must also be taken into consideration; for example, the 4th Amendment does not apply in the private sector (Cowan; Arthur & Doverspike).

There are many problems with the current testing technology, although these are being addressed by the use of hair analysis instead of urinalysis. Most important are those that have already been mentioned: current impairment cannot be detected, a person can easily cheat, results can be faked, and the results are often inaccurate because they can detect legal substances. In addition, in most states there are no guidelines, standardization, or certification requirements for the labs doing the actual testing. Also, the accuracy of the results can be affected by many human factors, such as mishandling, faulty equipment, and contamination (Cowan).

These problems lead into one of the main criticisms of corporate drug testing: who decides what to test, and why? Why not focus just as equally on prescription or over-the-counter drugs, which may be more widely used and abused?

Finally, one of the other important problems that opponents have is that drug testing erodes the employer-employee relationship. Random testing especially creates a hostile, suspicious work environment, which can lead to decreased job satisfaction and in turn to decreased company commitment and lower productivity levels. Company policy makers must decide if this trade-off is worth it. Additionally, in a changing work place where the traditional roles between supervisor and subordinate are wearing away, drug testing, especially for punitive reasons, is one way for managers to hold onto some power over their employees. This would definitely contribute to a hostile work environment.

Strategies for Effective Drug-testing Policies

In order for a policy to be effective, a company's employees must perceive it as fair. This is especially important when they are members of a union with collective bargaining powers. Arthur & Doverspike give several criteria for this:

(a) There is a precipitating event triggering the need for drug testing; (b) the job type or environment is such that the costs of mistakes are very high or there is a high level of safety sensitivity; (c) test results are kept confidential; (d) decisions made on the basis of test results tend to be more rehabilitative and developmental instead of punitive; (e) there is an opportunity to appeal a positive result; (f) the program is designed with union participation; and (g) there is a sound social account or justification given to employees for the need for the drug testing program.

Cowan adds additional guidelines, including having a written policy outlining drug and alcohol abuse policy and testing procedures; applying policy equally to all employees; use probable cause supported by documented job impairment as a reason for testing; inform employees of testing policies and procedures in advance; confirm all positive tests by a second, more accurate test; put in place procedures to ensure the quality of the sample, chain of custody, etc.; and retain sample of all positive specimens, to which employees should be given access to have tested at another lab of their choice.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are many factors and arguments to consider when implementing drug testing at a company. This is an increasingly important topic in today's workplace, where an estimated 81.1% of US companies have some kind of testing method (1996 AMA Survey). The decision has shifted from whether to test, to what is the most effective way of doing it. Most people, however, are in agreement that it must be done to help people overcome their addictions, rather than to punish them. Hopefully this will lead to more humane and ethical methods of drug testing.

However, the root cause must be addressed. Drugs will always be readily available as long as the demand is there. Only by eradicating the desire for illegal substances will their usage decline. Drug testing programs are a start, since they can identify people in need of treatment, but for the problem to completely go away, the structure of society itself must change.

References

1996 AMA Survey: Workplace Drug Testing and Drug Abuse Policies (1996), American Management Association, New York, NY

Arthur, W. Jr., & Doverspike, D. (1997). Employment-Related Drug Testing: Idiosyncratic Characteristics and Issues. Public Personnel Management, Vol 26 (1), 1, 77-87.

Butler, B. (1993). Alcohol and Drugs in the Workplace, Butterworths, Scarborough.

Cowan, T. R. (1987). Drugs and the Workplace: To Drug Test or Not to Test? Public Personnel Management, Vol 16 (4), 313-322.

Fendrich, M., & Kim, J. Y. S. (2002). The Experience and Acceptability of Drug Testing: Poll Trends. Journal of Drug Issues, Vol 32 (1), 81-96.

Jardine-Tweedie, L. & Wright, P. C. (1998). Workplace drug testing: avoiding the testing addiction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol 13 (8), 534-543.

Leonard, B. (1996). Performance testing can add an extra margin of safety. HR Magazine, Vol 42 (2), 61-64.

Solomon, R. M., & Usprich, S. J. (1993). Employment drug testing. Business Quarterly, Winter, 73-78.