Drug Screening Is Used More

Drug Screening is used more and more as a way of making decisions about human resource issues and to protect companies from problems that might be caused by employees using drugs, up to and including potential litigation. At the same time, employee groups often oppose drug screening without some reason for suspicion of employees. Some types of employment have used drug screening with greater impunity, notably for jobs that entail some public safety issue, such as drivers, engineers, and pilots. In other cases, the link between drug use and the problems companies might have is more economic and so not given the same priority. Screening methods have been made more reliable and less invasive over the years, which also reduces some of the rationale offered by unions and employee groups for not allowing such screening on a broad basis. The degree to which business demands the right to include drug screening as a condition of employment problem for business is found in workplace accidents and the costs incurred for medical assistance and for time lost in production. In 1997, some 5,300 workers were killed on the job, and another 3.3 million workers were treated in hospital emergency wards. Reducing workplace injury rates is a major focus for the Department of Health and Human Services. Not all of these accidents involved drug use, but it is believed that drug use does contribute to such accidents and that reducing drug and alcohol use by employees would also reduce rates of injury. The scope of the problem is noted by a recent study of the issue:

Drug screening of workers (for cause, periodic, preemployment, random, and postaccident) by one testing provider found that 4.9% of workers tested were positive for illicit drugs... Among the subset of safety-sensitive workers, 3.1% of tests were positive, and among tests performed after an injury/accident event, 3.9% were positive. (Spicer, Miller, and Smith para. 2)

The perception that this is a major issue has included the passage of various regulations to impose drug screening in the workplace, and various stas have passed laws concerning issues impacting the workplace: "Issues such as workplace security, a variety of prevailing-wage issues, equal employment opportunity, wages paid, time off, drug and alcohol testing, child labor, human trafficking, and protection for immigrants were included in new or amended legislation enacted during 2006" (Fitzpatrick para. 3).

Such drug testing programs increase with the perception that there is a problem, though such programs also often meet with intense criticism and resistance by labor and consumer groups. These programs have also increased in number even though there is a lack of rigorous empirical evidence regarding their effectiveness. A recent study analyzed national data on over 15,000 U.S. households to determine whether various types of workplace drug testing programs influenced the probability of drug use by workers. It was found that the estimated marginal effects of drug testing on any drug use were negative, significant, and relatively large, meaning that drug testing programs can achieve one of their desired effects. The results were found to be similar when any drug use was replaced with chronic drug use in the models, and this has important policy implications as to the effectiveness and economic viability of workplace anti-drug programs (French, Roebuck, and Alexandre 45-63).

Marie a. McKendall notes that there are several side effects to the use of workplace drug testing that may not be foreseen by managers. For one thing, drug screening is not perfect and can miss many drugs that can still affect performance. As McKendall notes, though drug testing is widespread, "too many organizations don't understand how drug tests work, what they are capable of detecting, or how they should be interpreted" (McKendall 32). McKendall notes that most drug tests screen for only five drug types, these being marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates, and PCP. Employers can add tests for barbiturates, Vicodin, tranquilizers, Darvon, Quaaludes, and Ecstasy, but since many of these drugs are prescription medications, their use is not illegal. Drug tests do not normally include LSD or inhalants. Employers also do not routinely screen for alcohol because of the short time it remains in the body, though alcohol is probably a more serious problem than illegal drugs in the workplace. Three methods of testing are commonly used, testing urine, hair, and saliva, and there are problems associated with each type. Saliva tests are often preferred because they give immediate results, but such tests are reliable only for a few days after usage and are the least accurate way to detect marijuana use. In addition, there are no nationally accepted standards for when a test is positive, and interpretation of results is also not reliable. Testing hair samples is more expensive but can show drug usage that is less recent in time than what can be shown by saliva and urine tests. Urine tests can identify most drugs for only a few days after use, and by then the drug level has dissipated so as not to register as a positive. Marijuana, though, can be detected up to a month after last use, and a urine test is the most likely way to show that someone is a casual marijuana user.

A recent problem has been identified for urine tests as a suspicion was raised about an applicant with a urine sample that was inappropriately dilute, raising the suspicion that it had been diluted on purpose. Investigation found that this was not the case and that the patient had chronic water intoxication because of a very strict diet regimen (Finkel 611). This again raises the question of the reliability of interpretation and shows how any method of drug testing may give false positives and questionable results.

Doris Wells stats that there is a need to be careful in selecting a method for drug testing and that what most organizations need is a drug-assessment instrument that is quick, reliable, cost-effective, and appropriate for the organization. The instrument should also be seen in terms of the manager's goals and objectives (Wells 28).

Whatever method is used, Robert Mather warns that not testing can be a threat to a business enterprise. As Mather writes about managers:

Not only do they face the traditional challenges associated with hiring and keeping dependable workers, but they also have to deal with the threat that a single poor hiring decision can ruin their company's reputation and bog them down in costly litigation. (Mather 16)

Mather also points out that companies lose four out of five suits for negligent hiring, with the average award being more than $1.6 million. Stuart Luman notes the threat from substance abuse practices by employees but also points out that while drug screening can identify the drug addict, it cannot identify the alcoholic, which can be a bigger problem and which also may mean that the drinking problem of an employee is not seen until after he or she is hired (Luman 28).

The psychological theory that best explains most drug use is Inadequate Personality Theory, noting how people use drugs as a means of coping with their problems and how they often face an emotional or psychic defect that is then self-treated by drug use. Drugs can serve for such people as a means of escape, taking them away from their problems and into a state of virtual indifference. One of the results of drug use is euphoria, which supplants the pain some people feel in their normal consciousness. The individual who uses drugs in this conception is inherently a weak person, and this also means that his or her drug use is likely to continue, for they will not become strong persons and will not really be helped by their drug use. For those with low self-esteem, drugs are a way to cope with social rejection, and since deviant behavior is itself a reason for social rejection, the cycle continues. Drug use is thus perpetuated by the reasons most people start taking drugs in the first place. Many people have difficulty coping with their problems, and they may turn to different coping mechanisms, one of which could be the abuse of drugs. This theory involves a number of ramifications about the likelihood of solving the drug problem and of getting users to give up the habit.

People are reluctant to confront illegal drug use for a number of reasons, depending on whether such use is within the family, in social situations, or at work. Drug use has been an often visible part of the American scene at least since the 1960s. Prior to that, drug use had a stronger social stigma and was much more clandestine. Drug use in the 1960s became more widespread, in part as a form of social protest, and in spite of efforts to change the perception of drugs as having any social utility at all, the practice continues in many circles. Young people become accustomed either to participating or to looking the other way, and this habit is carried over into later life.

In most cases, recreational drug use is seen as a victimless crime and a harmless activity. This attitude changes in the workplace if the drug use impairs performance to the detriment of other workers or if the work involves public safety, in which case tolerance for drug use drops significantly. Another reason why tolerance for some drug use is so high is because the attitude is a reaction to the apocalyptic warnings emanating from law enforcement and government, given that people know that mild marijuana use, for instance, is not the mind- and life-bending experience often claimed. Many do not see the problem as being as dire as it is made out to be, and so they do not see it in the way earlier generations did.

Casey J. Dickinson notes the increasing use of pre-testing for applicants as a way not assuring that the person hired does not use drugs. Drug testing is only one part of this effort as employers want to know more about the people they hire, including using background checks, fitness checks, and drug screening. This can be onerous for employees, or potential employees, when the different services are offered by a number of vendors so that gaining employment becomes something of an obstacle course (Dickinson 5).

This can raise concerns about employee privacy. The trend has been for more drug testing for some time, and almost one-half of Fortune 500 companies required or planned to require drug testing for employees by the end of 1987. Many argue against this move, seeing such a requirement as virtually always illegitimate as it overrides an employee's or applicant's rights to privacy.

The employer has a duty to the employee to refrain from harmful treatment, which in this case is what some say drug testing would be. It is also pointed out that the relationship between employer and employee is contractual, an economic relationship to satisfy the economic interests of both parties. Each party is responsible only for the responsibility it takes on voluntarily, and this might not include information gathered through drug testing.

Many CEOs avoid testing so as not to create hostility with the workforce, though it is often recommended that they institute testing to protect themselves. Others find that drug testing goes beyond the employer's sphere of influence. Other business leaders either accept that drug testing is not beyond their sphere of influence. Even those who accept the idea of testing in some circumstances may also deny the validity of such testing for the most part and suggest that the employer needs to justify any action he or she takes in this regard.

Even if all are in general agreement that drug testing for certain hazardous jobs is proper, there is no agreement on what constitutes a hazardous job and what level of hazard has to be achieved. Various authors see drug testing as ethical in certain circumstances, though they may differ on what those circumstances may be. Clearly, though, it is not as simple as the employee has to give the employer all the information requested, though some proponents of testing would make the claim that it is that simple because the employer can terminate employees at will and can set the terms of employment. That would be a legal argument and not an ethical one, however, and many see the need for an ethical justification for drug testing in the workplace. Everyone has to work, they reason, and employers should not place undue burdens on employees to they cannot work or cannot tolerate the conditions of employment. Employers should adopt this same view, of course, to retain employees, something that also reduces costs and improves performance. Challenging the privacy rights of the employee without good cause only increases workplace tensions and can cause more harm than the drugs.

At the same time, increased testing has been implemented in the face of evidence that drug use incurs a major social cost, including a cost in the workplace. The figures used are often questionable because of difficulties in measuring losses of productivity and profits that would result from one single problem. As evidnec for broader societal costs has developed, though, there has been a rise in anti-drug policies that can be seen in increased testing of job applicants and current employees alike for drug use:

Measuring workplace drug use with data acquired from testing applicants and employees initially revealed fairly high levels of drug use. Over time, they have declined. but, as most critics of drug-testing policies and procedures continually remind us, testing, as currently performed, reveals previous rather than current use, which is the stated concern among drug-testing proponents. (Tunnell 3)

The increase in drug testing has created an entire industry dedicated to providing such testing facilities for businesses, such as relatively small companies like HireRight Inc., based in Irvine, California, a company that does employee background checks and drug screening for employers. This particular company recently went public (Gomez 4). Such companies have a clear interest in fostering drug screening programs and in making the need seem even greater than it may be. For some types of employment, though, such services are necessary and welcome, again for jobs like those cited above, meaning bus drivers, train engineers, and pilots. One of the jobs with a particular emphasis on drug testing today is that of airport screener, a semi-governmental job that involves background checks and drug screening before employment and sometimes as a condition of ongoing employment. Hollis Gillespie notes that one of the ways of getting ajob at the airport today is to live a squeaky-clean life, for TSA screenrs, air traffic controllers, and flight attendants all must undergo a criminal background check, proof of citizenship, drug screening, and an English proficiency test (Gillespie 74).