I’ve searched everywhere, including here, for a reputable study that proves that random drug testing alone has a positive effect on workplace safety. Nada, so far.
My company instituted testing around ten years ago, and I noticed that our injury rates remained pretty much the same for at least a year. Not until we started getting more serious about education, PPE, and strict safety rules did the situation improve. Of course, that’s anecdotal evidence, so I tried to find “real” proof. No luck.
So, is there proof that random drug testing does prevent accidents in the workplace?
Please, let’s limit replies to answer this specific question.
Peace,
mangeorge
Can you show that places with no testing (of any sort - random, whole workforce, etc) have higher accident rates?
Compare Canadian and American data perhaps? We have similar cultures and lifestyles and no testing occurs in private industry here.
Isn’t that what he’s looking for in the first place?
And this study suggests that, yes, various drug testing regimes do significantly reduce OTJ injuries and other workplace incidents:
I don’t have access to the particulars, so I can’t speak to the validity of this study.
To whoever tosses some stats into the mix…I’d like to know if it’s a manufacturing environment or the “cube farm” scene that I have lived in, and had to agree to random testing.
My husband is in a manufacturing environment. The only thing I’ve ever heard him say is that when there’s an accident, they test for drugs and alcohol. But they still have guys sticking their hands into moving machines. For what it’s worth…
I did a brief search of an academic database of journal articles. From looking at a couple of review articles, I don’t think there is a published study that gets directly at the OP’s question. The main problem is that companies don’t implement random testing in isolation. There are usually other drug and safety programs implemented at the same time.
As Q.E.D. noted, there are studies that find benefits to overall drug testing programs. However, there don’t seem to be studies focused specifically on the random testing component. One study, described in the review as “well-designed” found that those with marijuana-positive urine tests had “55% more industrial accidents, 85% more injuries, and a 78% increase in absenteeism” (Zwerling et al. 1990).
My understanding when I worked there was that if you are injured badly enough on the job at Walmart to report it, you’re sent for drug testing (on top of the testing they do before they’ll hire you in the first place). My cynical side says that’s so they can refuse to pay for any medical bills because if the person tests positive, they can just blame that and probably fire them on the spot.
And I certainly don’t approve of being high at work, but the assumption that if you get hurt you might be high is a wee bit offensive somehow.
My company did impliment testing “in isolation”. They didn’t do anything else for well over a year, once the stats were convincing. Once they started the other avenues I mentioned, things improved dramatically and immediately. Our record is now better than ever. But they still test. :smack:
If I were a stockholder (I am), I’d want some answers as to why they’re still spending all that money. They have cut way back on frequency of testing.
I thought a recent law change (last few years) made it free or almost free for a company to do drug testing on the employees - a tax writeoff, or some rebate program or something.
I don’t know.
Did they implement *random * testing in isolation from other kinds of testing (for cause, pre-employment)? In any case, my statement was more with respect to what I found in academic literature. I’m sure the occasional company has implemented random testing separately from other initiatives, but that doesn’t appear to be the norm and isn’t what the studies tend to look at.
Also, keep in mind that safety is only one part of the cost-benefit that they would take to a discussion with shareholders. Absenteeism, health insurance, WC insurance premiums*, and pilferage/embezzlement risk would all be in there. That’s not to say there aren’t a bunch of things on the cost side of the analysis, too, like morale and recruiting in addition to the implementation cost.
It does look like a topic that could benefit from more research.
- which might be lower due to the testing program regardless of results. This site claims employees w/ substance abuse problems file 3-5 times more WC claims http://www.ncsl.org/programs/employ/drugtest.htm The site also lists state laws on how premiums can be reduced.
They would probably tell you that the reason that they do drug testing is because they get a much lower rate from their insurance carrier if they do so. This savings is well above the cost of the testing.
I used to work for Limited Brands, which has absolutely NO drug testing for its distribution centers. Can’t find any accident data at the moment (though I’ll continue looking) but the company is doing pretty well overall. Cite
I was a member of the Safety Committee, and can tell you that they take workplace safety very seriously. I also know that at least half of the people on my shift in my building (about 75) are regular pot smokers.
I work on the Safety Committee at my work too. I’ve never heard the topic of random drug testing arise at a committee meeting.
I know that when someone injures themselves at work and has to go to the clinic, they have to have a drug test. I assume if they test positive for anything, we can choose to use that to disqualify them for benefits or something.
In my opinion, I think safety is more about communication and making employees aware of what the hazard is. One year, our warehouse (which is 600,000 square feet) had fewer injuries than our office location. No one believed the numbers. Our worker’s comp insurance company said it’s because in the warehouse, you have visible dangers everywhere: Moving forklifts, boxes stacked high, narrow staircases, long drops off a loading dock, etc. But in our office, it’s just a cube farm with a call center.
So how did we have more accidents in the office? Without apparent (visible) dangers, people do dangerous things without thinking about it. Running around corners, getting on top of a chair with wheels to reach for something, leaving the top drawer open and walking away from a filing cabinet, leaving cords hanging out in a hall, etc.
I’ve never once seen an accident caused by what I suspected was drugs or alcohol in the workplace.
Although I do wonder a little bit about the person who was standing on a chair with wheels to reach for something.
Only by inference: it’s the reverse.
I’m pretty sure that’s not strictly true. I work (indirectly) in the oilfield industry, and AFAIK many large oil companies drug-test their employees.
mangeorge, my apologies in advance for posting a reply that you specifically asked to avoid but finally I have the opportunity to post a pic of my own recent workplace injury. Had my manager known where the paperwork was kept, I’d have been drug-tested when they sent me to get stitched up. Not a big deal for all involved since it’s pretty well known that I’m the token clean-and-sober person on the night crew. My related curiosity, though, would be whether or not there are more injury accidents on the night shifts than there are during the day, since I believe that chronic sleep deprivation plays a big role in accidents, maybe more than substance abuse (if it truly does) since lack of sleep for a night-shifter is often unavoidable.
Erm, I didn’t mean to imply that drugs and drug testing came up as a committee topic; it never did. Rather, we were dispatched to do random inspections of the various work areas in the distribution center, make sure forklift and PJ operators were liscensed, etc. Knowing that a bunch of potheads work there comes from being approached by many many folks I worked with, who wanted to know if I was a smoker too.
*Interestingly enough, the worst accident ever in our building’s history happened to a guy my husband worked with, and he didn’t smoke or drink or anything. (At least, he didn’t freely admit to it like the others. Without the testing, I guess we’ll never know.) About to wreck his lift, he put out his foot to try to stop himself, and crushed off his leg below the knee.
If they were doing business with American oil companies, perhaps that had something to do with it. I worked for a very small business in Louisiana that made CCTV systems for offshore oil rigs, and everyone in the company had to be tested just because of who we were selling our product to!
Nor did I mean to imply - I just thought it was an interesting point.
Our committee’s goal is to reduce worker’s compensation insurance claims (just to put a numeric metric on our work). If we keep them below certain amounts, the entire company is awarded with extra holiday days.
During our monthly meetings, many suggestions and assignments for action come up for how to help with safety. I just find it interesting that random drug testing has never come up in the meetings, and as far as I know our company does not do any testing except when someone is injured at work. However, everyone does have to pass a test to start working for the company.