Drug Testing in the Workplace

Drug Testing in the Workplace

“Since Boston police started annual drug testing in 1999, 75 officers have failed the tests, and 26 of them flunked a second test and were fired. Of the 75 officers, 61 tested positive for cocaine, 14 for marijuana, two for ecstasy, and one for heroin, according to the figures, obtained by the Globe through a public records request. Some officers had more than one drug in their system,” (Smalley 2006). Substantial controversy has arisen in the past few years over the proposals to test employees in the workplace for substance abuse. Some encourage workplace testing and say that it is an essential weapon in the war against drug abuse, however, others criticize the testing as unlikely to reduce drug-related impairments in the work force, and see it as an interference with the private lives of employees (Schottenfeld 1989). The following will examine the development and history of drug testing, the types of programs currently in use, the benefits and the potential pitfalls of workplace testing, guidelines needed to make it ethical, and some alternatives that may be implemented to appease both the employee and the employer.

Despite the controversy, workplace drug testing has grown considerably over the last two and a half decades. For example, between the years of 1985 and 1991, the percentage of Fortune 500 companies starting to conduct drug tests increased from eighteen percent to forty percent. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that companies using testing increased by fifty percent between 1988 and 1990. In 1994, the American Management Association conducted a survey of their corporate members and its results yeilded a 300 percent increse in testing within the workplace since 1987. According to the same survey, eighty-seven percent of their members were conducting some type of drug testing within their own work place. Over half the members indicated that the decision to implement drug testing stemmed from federal government requirements. With the passage by the House of Representatives of the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1998 providing incentives to small businesses to establish drug testing programs, it appears likely that the growth will continue (Shepard 1998).

“The technology to detect drugs of abuse in urine has been developed over the past twenty years to aid in the acute, emergency treatment of drug overdoses and to aid in the long-term treatment of drug abusers in drug rehabilitation programs” (Schottenfeld 1989). Rehabilitation programs see this technology as an invaluable tool in reducing denial to its users. However, drug testing in the rehab programs has since become less problematic due to the fact that most patients enter voluntarily or agree to enter as part of their treatment, and are tested for their own benefit.

Rehab programs may have initiated the use of the urine testing, however, the government encouraged companies to implement drug-testing as a means to achieve drug-free workplaces and to improve productivity (Shepard 1998). “The issue gained national attention in 1986 with President Reagan's Executive Order 12564, which required federal agencies to develop programs and policies to achieve drug free workplaces. The Drug Free Workplace Act was first passed in 1986 and later in 1998, and it led to regulations by federal agencies requiring random testing of contract workers where there were concerns related to public safety or national security.” (Shepard 1998). In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled five to four in the case of National Treasury Employees Union vs. Von Raab, and ruled that testing an employee without reasonable suspicion did not violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. This case paved the way for the unexpected growth of workplace drug testing (Armentano 2005). Due to these actions, work place drug testing has become an expected action within the hiring process. Prospective employees are the group that is most often tested for drug use with a sample of urine, hair, blood or swab from the mouth. Today’s technology allows for these results to be processed within one to two days. Many of the companies that test are those with strict workplace safety legislation in which they use dangerous equipment or those companies that may have access to sensitive information (Sofsian 2005). Employers want to be certain and confident that their employees are not drug abusers, and there are many ways to ensure their confidence.

With the help of modern technology, we are no longer in the golden age of the plastic collection cup. Although the urinalysis is still used, “state of the art” alternative drug testing procedures have come about, claiming to be less intrusive and more sensitive to the drugs that it tests. Examples of these technologically advanced testing programs are: hair, saliva, and sweat testing. We will examine all the programs, including urinalysis testing, inspecting the pros and cons of each.

The first and most common test is the urinalysis test. The urinalysis is performed by urinating into a cup and with the use of test strips, the test detects up to twelve different drugs depending on the choice of the test kit. The pros of the urinalysis test begin with the results being accurate and reliable. Urine drug test kits are much lower in price than any other type of testing and the results are almost instant because a lab is not needed to process the results. These kits have a long shelf life and are really easy to store. From the other aspect, there is usually a three day window of detection, depending on the person and on the substance used. These particular kits are exceptionally easier to tamper with than any other test. There is also a need for a bathroom to administer the test. Some feel as though the urinalysis is embarrassing and more invasive than others such as the blood testing (TestCountry.com).

The second test that we will examine is the hair testing technique, which is performed by collecting an undetectable snip of hair without causing embarrassment. Hair can be collected in-house, saving time and the inconvenience of having an employee visit a urine collection site. Some of the benefits of doing hair testing for drug use are that this type of testing has a very long detection window of ninety days or more. Tampering with this test is a lot more difficult than any other test. Hair Drug Testing is very dependable and accurate, detecting up to six different types of drugs. The main disadvantage of hair drug testing is the fact that you need a lab to run the test and generate the results. Due to this fact, it may take a few extra days to receive the results. Another disadvantage of the hair drug test is that is may not detect very