Workplace Drug Screening Opinion

Workplace Drug Screening Opinion

The perception of workplace drug testing varies among the nation, continuing the controversial debate of drug testing in the workplace. Those against drug testing often cite the fourth amendment, “which protects the ‘rights of the people’ to be free from ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ by the government” (Carpenter, 2008, p. 5). Those in agreement with drug testing often state that they have not only the right to drug test employees but also a responsibility to maintain the safety of the workplace environment. The development of drug testing in the workplace began in 1988 when Ronald Reagan, then-president, authorized strict guidelines and programs for all Federal agencies in effort to “deter and detect the use of illicit drugs for all employees in safety-sensitive and security-sensitive positions” (Bush, 2008, p. 112). As a result, other state and governmental agencies, such as the U. S. Department of Transportation began adopting and enforcing similar guidelines and programs, including mandated drug testing of all employees in effort to increase safety and continue to deter illegal drug use in the workplace. Employers who receive federal assistance funds from the government are required to provide and enforce a drug-free workplace; the law does not require, nor restrict drug testing employees (American Civil Liberties Union, 2000). Private employers wishing to voluntarily develop a drug-free workplace program must evaluate a variety of important factors to determine the necessity of implementing drug testing as a component of the program.

Development of the Drug-Free Workplace

Developing a company-specific drug-free workplace policy that is effective, includes a variety of components: a policy outlining the program, management training, employee education, drug testing, employee assistance program (EAP), and a reputable drug or alcohol treatment program (Knights, n.d.). Training managers to detect specific signs of possible drug use in the workplace, as well as how to responsibly approach employees, is essential for detection and prevention. Drug awareness education for employees, as well as services available to those in need of help struggling with substance issues can not only reduce possible drug use in the workplace but also assist in decreasing the need for drug testing. State and government agencies limit, prohibit, or mandate certain components of drug testing in the workplace. Employers can alleviate potential costly issues surrounding drug testing in the workplace by becoming familiar with the specific requirements according to state laws and statutes surrounding appropriate drug testing. A variety of factors determine the appropriateness of drug testing in the workplace: the industry, position, or type of work performed; the potential increase in risk of safety or health concerns; basic privacy and individual rights; the testing policy; as well as the agreement of employment (Neumann, 2010). An examination of drug testing in the workplace includes: the testing programs allowed, who to test, when to test, methods of drug testing to use, the reliability of those methods, and the procedures surrounding drug testing.

Types of Drug Testing Programs

Examining various programs of drug testing include understanding state and federal guidelines, which may enforce or prohibit employers from requiring employees to submit to a drug test under certain testing conditions. The most common reasons for employers to conduct a drug test include: pre-employment, reasonable suspicion, post-accident, random, routine or periodic, return-to-duty, and treatment program testing (U. S. Department of Labor, 2013). An increasing number of employers require applicants to submit to pre-employment drug screening to deter illicit drug use in the workplace. Testing an employee based on suspicious behavior requires specific documentation of employee behavior prior to requesting or mandating an employee to take a drug test. Many states allow employers to mandate a drug test when an employee is involved in, causes, or otherwise participates in work related accidents or destruction of company equipment. The U. S. Department of Labor (2013) allows employees up to 12 hours to submit to a drug or alcohol test. Many states prohibit employers from subjecting employees to random drug testing, without cause, to ensure employees are free from mind-altering substances. However, Federal and government agencies often mandate random drug testing of employees, as well as require yearly physical examinations and testing of employees in safety-sensitive and security-sensitive positions. According to Neumann (2010), Employees testing positive for illicit drug use may be required to participate in a treatment program. At the completion of the program, many employers can subject the employee to years of random drug testing, as allowed by various state and federal laws. Use of these drug testing programs can impact the workplace environment, negatively affecting the employee/employer relationship. Before deciding which drug testing programs to subject employees to, it is important to understand the methods of drug testing used and the reliability of these methods.

Testing Methods and Reliability

Drug tests can detect certain levels of metabolites in the body at the time of testing; often deemed reliable in determining substance use but not reliable in determining current use or levels of impairment. The accuracy and reliability of drug testing depends on a variety of factors; the collection procedure, testing procedure, and notification of testing as well as the substance used. According to the U. S. Department of Labor (2013), guidelines for standard testing procedures include using a state certified laboratory, specific chain-of-custody methods, cut-off concentration levels, and screening of the (5) most common illegal substances. Detection of an illegal substance requires a sample of bodily fluid such as urine, breath, blood, hair, saliva, or sweat. The most commonly used drug test is the urinalysis; it is also the easiest to alter. The other testing methods, commonly used by government agencies, were developed in effort to reduce alteration and increase accuracy and reliability of the detection of drug use. However, these tests often infringe on individual privacy rights. The urinalysis can detect recent use of substances, from a few days to week; unreliable in detecting current use and impairment. The breath test, used specifically to detect alcohol content in the blood, measures impairment at the time of testing. According to the U. S. Department of Labor (2013), “a BAC reading of 0.04 or higher is considered to be a positive drug test and requires immediate removal from safety-sensitive functions” (para. 18). The blood test, deemed most reliable in detecting current use at time of testing but has a very small detection window. Hair samples detect a substance use within the last 90 days, allowing the employer a history of substance use. The saliva test, easy to collect and difficult to alter, detects current impairment and substance use at the time of testing but has an extremely short detection window. The sweat test is a patch worn on the skin for about a week and is able to detect a variety of substances consumed during that time. This test is commonly used for complying with probation requirements (U. S. Department of Labor, 2013). These testing methods are not proven to be highly accurate or fail-safe. The majority of employers, including government agencies rarely test for prescription medication; maintaining their focus on illicit drugs. This leads to an increase risk of false-positive test results and the need to further investigate with a more reliable and more expensive tests. To prevent false-positives, employees often have to release private medical information. As the number of employees using a prescription drug increase, drug testing becomes less effective and more detrimental to employees.

Research shows drug tests are ineffective at deterring illicit drug use. Statistics continue to report many illicit drug users who are employed. Many intelligent and highly qualified individuals use illicit drugs moderately or occasionally. Drug tests fail to detect and identify a significant number of illicit drug users. Research conducted by the National Academy of Sciences concluded no significant difference between illicit drug users and non-users in the areas of performance, absenteeism, work related accidents, productivity, and the use of company health care benefits (ACLU, 1999). Drug testing is not cost-effective for many employers. These tests fail to determine a difference between a drug abuser and a drug user, forcing the few that test positive to participate in an evaluation for treatment at the cost of the employer. Employees refusing to participate in these programs or otherwise disqualified for treatment often take the employer to court with claims of wrong dismissal; increasing the cost. “If drug-related impairment on the job is an employer’s primary concern, drug testing is both an over-inclusive and an under-inclusive strategy” (ACLU, 1999, p. 10). Employers should not rely on drug testing to prevent work-related problems that may or may not be drug related. Instead, employers should incorporate a comprehensive drug-free program developed on the company’s needs with limited use of drug testing.

References

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). (1999). Drug Testing: A Bad Investment. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/FilesPDFs/drugtesting.pdf

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). (2000). Drug Testing. Drug Testing – Table 410. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/drug-testing

Bush, D. M. (2008). The U. S. Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Programs: Current status and future considerations. Forensic Science International. 174, p. 111-119. Retrieved from www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint

Carpenter, D. H. (2008). Governmental Drug Testing Programs: Legal and Constitutional Developments. Research Policy. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://research.policyarchive.org/20208.pdf

Knights, R. M. (n.d.). A Managerial Perspective of Employee Drug Testing in the American Workplace. The Journal of Applied Business Research. 5(3), 59 – 65. Retrieved from http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/JABR/article/viewFile/6349/6427

Neumann, A. (2010, June). Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing. Research Department of the Minnesota House of Representatives. Retrieved from http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/dgaltest.pdf

United States Department of Labor. (2013). Workplace Drug Testing. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/elaws/asp/drugfree/drugs/dt.asp