Kannibal

A more tolerant workplace?
Even as new drug-test methods emerge, fewer employers bother

By Andrea Coombes | CBS.MarketWatch.com | Last Update: 8:52 PM ET Feb. 10, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- Workplace drug testing has moved far beyond the days of a sojourn to the bathroom, cup in hand. Nowadays, employers can swab workers' desks or take samples of their hair, sweat or saliva.



But whether it's because an increasing level of tolerance or the cost, fewer companies test their workers than did so in the 1980s, when President Reagan called for drug-free workplaces and instituted testing of federal employees.

Fifty percent of large U.S. companies subjected employees to drug tests in 2001, down from 62 percent a decade earlier, according to a survey of about 1,600 companies by the American Management Association in the most recent data available.

"Employers are doing less drug testing than they used to," said Richard Block, attorney and co-chairman of Pillsbury Winthrop's employment and labor law practice, which represents employers.

One potential reason: A new generation of chief executives who may be more tolerant of drug use. "We've already had presidents being elected having admitted they've tried marijuana," Block said.

"I'm not supporting that tolerance, but maybe our society as a general rule is not so alarmed about the casual use off-premises of something like marijuana," he said.

It's the cost

But cost is likely the main driver behind fewer companies testing. Firms often can't pinpoint specific productivity issues that warrant drug testing.

"If you don't have a visible performance issue, how can you quantify what you're saving by virtue of these tests?" Block said. "For the company to spend $50 (per test), if you have 10,000 employees or more, you have to feel that's a very important part of your productivity issues."

Still, drug-testing advocates say the cost of not testing is steeper. "The amount of money it costs each year for employers through lost productivity, theft, workers' compensation -- you're talking hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars," said Laura Shelton, executive director of the Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association.

And being high on the job isn't the sole problem. "A lot of the productivity issues are not necessarily the effect of a worker being under the influence of a drug at work," said Michael Walsh, president of The Walsh Group, a drug-policy research firm.

For instance, workers who don't get high on the job may still spend time at work securing drugs, Walsh said. There are about 16 million illegal-drug users in the U.S. who are using drugs at least once a month. "It creates a scenario that should make all employers wary."

About 5 percent of private-industry employees tested positive for drugs in the first six months of 2003, according to test-provider Quest Diagnostics (DGX: news, chart), which performed 3.4 million workplace drug tests in that time.

Alternative tests

Urinalysis still reigns supreme as the drug test of choice, in part because it's cheaper: About $35 versus $50 for a hair test. But newer methods, while usually more expensive, are easier to administer, more immune to cheating and cover longer-term drug use.

Hair tests, for instance, can provide a 90-day history for five drugs: marijuana, amphetamines, cocaine, opiates and PCP. Urinalysis misses most drugs except marijuana if more than a few days have passed.

And it's nearly impossible to substitute another person's hair for one's own, while an Internet search for "clean urine" elicits numerous products aimed at helping workers avoid testing positive on urine tests.

The federal government is considering hair, sweat and saliva tests for use on its employees, and that move may spur greater use of alternative methods. While companies have free rein to choose their method, a federal thumbs-up on any particular test type acts as a seal of approval, making it more likely more companies adopt such tests.

Already, about 2,600 clients of drug-test provider Psychemedics Corp. (PMD: news, chart), including General Motors and Anheuser-Busch, use hair tests. Psychemedics last year conducted "hundreds of thousands" of hair tests, said William Thistle, the company's legal counsel.

Shying from random tests

Among firms that conduct tests, most avoid random testing (some are required by federal law to randomly test workers in safety-sensitive jobs), preferring to test only after they become suspicious that a worker uses drugs, or a potentially drug-induced accident occurs.

It's "demeaning and invasive to tell your workers 'look, you're all suspect here, you've got to prove to me you're not doing drugs,'" said Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project.

"That's an environment that employees are not particularly fond of. It's the Dilbert world of the boss scrutinizing everything you do and the employees hating the boss," Boyd said.

Beyond demeaning, some tests might be discriminatory, Boyd said, particularly hair tests, which some say are more likely to register positive drug use on darker hair than lighter hair. "You shouldn't have a tool that is going to more easily identify an African-American drug user than a blond user," he said.

Still, Thistle, of Psychemedics, says studies have disproved that theory. "There have been large-scale population studies comparing hair tests and urine tests on the same individuals and the positive rates by race are identical for hair as they are for urine."

Boyd is also concerned about new technology enabling employers to swipe workspaces for evidence of drugs. While most companies simply use it as a barometer of workplace drug use rather than targeting specific employees, the potential for misuse is there.

"You have a company that might possibly do a swipe on a particular person's phone or desk or keyboard and it comes up positive and you take action against that employee. That's absurd," he said, because of the likelihood of cross-contamination by others.

But, given the at-will nature of most employment, "in most states, absent a collective bargaining agreement, there's no remedy" for an employee to sue, he said. "That's the reality."

Andrea Coombes is a reporter for CBS.MarketWatch.com in San Francisco.

xxdr_zombiexx

Drug Czar pushes school drug testing
KVOA | April 20, 2004 at 5:24PM MT

Sandy Rathbun Reports

President Bush's Deputy Drug Czar was in Tucson Tuesday promoting the concept of schools drug testing your teenager.

Andrea Barthwell, Deputy Director of National Drug Control Policy for Demand Reduction, says President Bush wants the federal government to help pay for drug testing in middle and high schools.

[zombienote: A rightwing social program... what do ya know? They close psychiatric programs for the poor - because we have no money to actually HELP people, but can afford to subsidize an invasive, useless program that fits with a certain political ideology, and rewards (funnels money to) those who support it.]

Barthwell says Bush won't force the program on anybody, but she believes tests could help students fight peer pressure "by saying 'hey, you know, I can't use that marijuana. I'm part of the drug testing program."

[zombienote: How lame can they get? ALL they care about is marijuana. It is a MUCH bigger issue than most people realize.]

Barthwell says, "Drug testing has been successful in Fortune 500 companies. It's been successful in regulated industries. It's been successful in the military."

Eyewitness News 4 called school districts around town for their reaction. The Sunnyside District says just Tuesday it started talking to students about the pros and cons of starting drug testing there.

__________________
Torture Good, Healthcare Bad, Marijuana Evil.

There's no money for your issue so long as we're squandering $50 billion a year on the DrugWar. Ben Masel

Keyser Soze

"If you don't have a visible performance issue, how can you quantify what you're saving by virtue of these tests?" Block said.

He hit the nail right on the head here, and as far as I'm concerned it should be end of discussion! Whatever I use on my own time is my business, when it has no affect on my performance at work there is no reason my employer should be concerned.