The Pointlessness of the Workplace Drug Test

[onehandle]

Cup-peeing and mouth-swabbing are Reagan-era relics that frequently do little more than boosting the revenues of companies that analyze samples.

Last year, U.S. workers peed into one drug testing company’s cups about 9.1 million times. And last year, as in other recent years, analysis of about 350,000 of those cups indicated drug use. Most often, the drug of choice was marijuana, followed by amphetamines and painkillers.

The data are a little patchy, but the best estimate is that about 40 percent of U.S. workers are currently subjected to drug tests during the hiring process. Intuitively, that seems like a good idea: A sober, addiction-free workforce is probably a more productive workforce and, in the cases of operating forklifts or driving 18-wheelers, a safer workforce too.

But some of this cup-peeing might be for naught (and that seems to be something that other countries recognize: Drug testing is far more widespread in the U.S. than anywhere else). In many situations, drug tests aren’t capable of revealing impairment on the job, and the cost of finding a single offending employee is high. Besides, as the country takes a more and more permissive stance toward marijuana, and as the painkillers doctors prescribe are abused more and more often, there are gray areas that arise. What role should drug testing play in the workplaces of 2015?

Contemporary workplace drug testing owes its existence to the policies of Ronald Reagan, who in 1988 signed an executive order that led to legislation requiring federal employees and some contractors to be tested. The typical American employer wasn’t required to do anything differently (and still isn’t), but some large companies took this as a cue. A new market bloomed in response. “These … policies fueled the development of a huge industry,” writes SUNY Buffalo’s Michael Frone in his book Alcohol and Illicit Drug Use in the Workforce and Workplace, “comprising drug-test manufacturers, consulting and law firms specializing in the development of drug-testing policies and procedures, and laboratories that carry out the testing.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/drug-testing-effectiveness/394850

[Comrade Grumpy]

1. Sounds like something labor unions should tackle.

If only American workers belonged to unions anymore. Otherwise, it's just you versus the boss.

[Major Nikon]

9. Unions have very little power to stop employers from drug testing

There's plenty of unionized employees who are subject to drug and/or alcohol testing. The best a union can do is insure procedures are in place that protect workers from arbitrary and capricious actions by the employer.

[Comrade Grumpy]

16. Whaddya mean? This is the stuff of contract negotiations.

How about this as a negotiating position: No drug tests without cause?

Granted, federal laws probably impose drug testing on some workers, but the rest of us? Plenty are subject to drug testing only because nobody stood up against it. Federal law doesn't require WalMart to piss test their employees...

[Taitertots]

15. Which unions protect their members from drug tests?

Because to my knowledge, labor unions have done nothing to stop widespread drug testing

[Comrade Grumpy]

17. I agree they have done too little. But they should be protecting workers.

And if you don't have a union, it's just you against the boss.

[NCTraveler]

2. It is my understanding...

that in states like Florida, employer drug tests are mainly due to insurance rate discounts. Completely pointless to employment.

[Taitertots]

12. I've seen companies "randomly" pick the people they thought would pass

[TheNutcracker]

3. But marijuana stays in your system for over a month. Three weeks your clean, and test positive.

Such a ruse....for the medical blood labs...

[immoderate]

4. So true. Most other drugs piss out in a day.

But cannabis is fat soluble, and its metabolites linger in body tissue. So most work place "drug" tests are merely marijuana tests.

--imm

[jwirr]

8. Plus if I am not mistaken - there are ways to hide this? One point that we like about testing - our

family have several addicts. While in treatment they have not only the job testing but also the treatment program. Several of us openly acknowledge that we wish we could find a way that my grandson had to be tested the rest of his life. It helps him stay clean.

[Major Nikon]

11. Not any good ones

The substances that people use to mask drug test results are also detectible. My company has a policy that if you are caught adulterating your sample it's an immediate dismissal, but someone can test positive for drugs and in most cases they won't lose their job.

[jwirr]

23. I had just heard about it not how it works.

[lancer78]

24. You can always do an oil change.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. Don't Kid Yourself

The tests are not as sensitive as advertised. Part of the "can detect up to a month" is the same Reagan era scare mongering as described in the article.

Cato (yeah, Cato; sue me) did a study about 6 or 8 years ago (sorry i couldn't find it) that showed that the economic "benefit" was also grossly overstated as insurance rates seldom dropped by enough to cover the incurred cost.

And, what's missing here is that the testing of existing employees is usually done on a population so small that it has very little chance of hitting people who actually use drugs enough to negatively impact their performance.

So, it's a lot of bluster but not much use.

[Rex]

5. If only they tested ALL employees, sadly it is the workers that get tested. Top management excluded.

The pee cup is nothing but a tool of the rich in their never ending class war.

[Major Nikon]

14. Most companies that do test only test employees in safety critical positions

I'm sure there are some companies out there that blanket test all employees, but this is becoming less common.

The biggest problem I have I drug testing doesn't indicate if the person comes to work stoned. I could care less if an employee uses drugs off the job, but I wouldn't want a fork lift operator coming to work drunk or stoned. Drug testing policies assume anyone who is a user is an addict who is drugged up all the time, yet in reality this is rarely the case. The irony is that few companies alcohol test, which is a far bigger problem and can actually determine if someone is under the influence on the job.

[Rex]

18. True, if they really cared they would have Breathalyzer tests waiting at the warehouse door.

I fall in the same boat, I don't give a rats ass if someone is doing drugs off site. As long as it does not effect the job or they come to work fucked up (which mean they get fired anyway) I don't have any problem with it.

My problem is with the states that do drug tests, as kickbacks to various drug testing corporations for political donations for the campaign trail.

FWIW, I think the entire War on Drugs is class warfare.

[Major Nikon]

20. I don't think that

I know it.

The drug war started about the same time as the alcohol war. The reason why the alcohol war failed is because it included all classes. The drug war has never been about anything but class warfare.

[fizzgig]

25. i've had to do four drug tests since i started working

first one was when i started at the local rag and the other three were for call centers.

[CrispyQ]

30. In this area pre-employment drug testing is the norm.

Some companies have gone to cheek swabs instead of urinalysis, but they are still drug testing. Even six month contract positions drug test. I called a placement agency & they told me, "We don't drug test but the majority of our clients do."

And I live in CO, where med & rec marijuana are legal. I go to the dispensary & I see all types of people there, young, old, professionals, mothers, grandmothers, regular people, not "unproductive members of society."

Drug testing is another form of control by our corporate masters.

And you are right about the irony hypocrisy of alcohol. It is a much bigger workplace problem than pot.

[Journeyman]

6. Too often, as well, "drug tests" are used to classify people, especially women. . .

Once they've got your urine or blood, there's nothing to stop them from conducting whatever tests they wish to run. So they use it to determine if women are using birth control or are possibly pregnant (which can have an immediate effect on potential advancement), or to learn what prescription drugs someone is using (the better to know what medical conditions they may be inflicted with), or even -- for a slightly higher fee -- to learn what potential someone may have for developing any of a number of debilitating diseases (correctly or not), and thus determine if it is a good investment to hire or keep them given the effect they may eventually have on the bottom line of health care and insurance.

So many potential abuses, so little effective safeguards. Yeah, they want to "keep the workplace safe," but they also want to protect their bottom line. And they don't care how many lives may get needlessly crushed in the process.

[FLPanhandle]

7. It's the threat of a drug test that keeps employees clean.

We have random drug tests, so 90%+ of us would never take any. The few that get caught and fired are a deterrent to the rest.

[Luminous Animal]

22. If they are not doing drugs on the job, why should anyone care?

[B Calm]

10. Marijuana testing was invented by a hippie chemist to determine the potency of THC.

[One_Life_To_Give]

13. Workers Regulated by DOT have little choice.

When you end up with a 50% minimum sample for random screening. And the obligatory tests within an hour of an incident. And perhaps we should ask if someone is presumed to impaired to operate transportation equipment. Are they really able to do your taxes? Repair your Brakes? Build the Electrical Toy your Child plays with?

Perhaps what we need is a better test to tell if someone is impaired during the time when such could have an impact upon the rest of society. And having known someone who was an alcoholic after work hours. Perhaps able to alert medical intervention when necessary.

[Comrade Grumpy]

19. The issue should be impairment, not the presence of metabolites.

[B Calm]

21. The problem with marijuana testing is, it shows positive up to 30 days. What I did over the weekend

or the night before I go to work is none of the company business. It's a privacy issue that should be taken to the supreme court. They also could be testing to see if you have any medical issues and fire you before you end up costing the employer medical insurance money.

[Warpy]

27. That substance needs to be dropped

unless they can come up with a test for active cannabinoids instead of month old metabolites.

We'll see full legalization first.

[B Calm]

31. All employer drug testing needs to stop!

[Warpy]

32. Not really, not if the job is around controlled substances

whether they're legal or not and an employee's behavior is getting erratic.

I've worked with two nurses who were caught with dirty urine. Both had enough job problems to justify firing. Instead, they were offered inpatient rehab.

The stakes in health care are just a little too high to allow impaired employees on the job. That can be said for many other jobs, as well.

What an employee does on his or her own time is his or her own business. Drug testing that tests for inactive metabolites that might be days (or in the case of cannabis weeks) old need to be stopped.

[B Calm]

33. I can take LSD and go to work. Employer could drug test me and I would test clean

because they don't test for LSD.

I'm not willing to give up our right to privacy because some healthcare worker might be high. If the employee had job problems then fire them, but don't infringe on my privacy.

[Warpy]

34. Hospitals are a little different

and they were only tested for cause. That's very different from random pee tests used for intimidation.

Do you want to be taken care of by an impaired person?

I sure as hell don't.

[B Calm]

35. If you cannot do the work, employers have a legitimate reason for firing you.

Even a positive pee test doesn't prove the employee present intoxication or impairment, all it indicates is that a person may have taken a drug at some time in the past.

It is unfair to force workers who are not even suspected of using drugs to "prove" their innocence through a degrading and uncertain procedure that violates personal privacy.

Analysis of a person's urine can disclose many details about that person's private life other than drug use. It can tell an employer whether an employee or job applicant is being treated for a heart condition, depression, epilepsy or diabetes. It can also reveal whether an employee is pregnant.

[Warpy]

36. Highly educated and trained people are different from those who are not

Employers kinda want to retain the former.

If the problem can be fixed, they'll fix it.

[Warpy]

26. Nurses I worked with were only tested before hiring

and for cause, like erratic behavior or a change of shift narcotic count that was really far off.

That was prudent for people who worked with the whole candy store every day.

I can't see it for people like fast food workers, it's a colossal waste of time and money and only serves to humiliate already desperate people.

The latter is probably why bosses love it.

[Blue_In_AK]

28. I was working in an Alaska prison when they first started drug testing inmates

using UAs in 1982. One astute inmate commented to me at the time that the prisoners were being used as drug testing guinea pigs and that very soon the technology would spread out for use on the general public, as well. Prescient.