I’m trying to figure this out and can’t seem to make any logical headway…
My company conducts mandatory random drug testing. They claim that this is done for the protection of their own employees and for the protection of their customers. Noble motives, but somewhat suspect because:
(1) By their own admission they have detected possible drug use in less than 0.1% of the people tested.
(2) Only certain drugs are tested for (marijuana and cocain), due to the expense of detection for some drugs (heroin, ecstacy, and many designer drugs).
(3) Alcohol is not considered a drug, so is not tested.
I think alcohol is responsible for a significantly larger frequency of occupational accidents than other drugs, but there’s no test for it because nearly everyone in management would fail…
So here’s my question: Does anyone know of any data linking occupational safety incidents and the use of drugs? Actually, anything remotely relevant would be welcome.
I may want to file a protest the next time I get tested and would like to be armed with some real data. It’s not that I plan on running out and getting doped up… I’m just very particular about the circumstances and the people with whom I choose to share body fluids…
It fails, however to confirm some of the cost claims made by testing proponents:
“Drug abuse costs employers billions of dollars every year in lost productivity, absenteeism, and health care”.
Interestingly one of the pro testing sites made the following claim, with respect to conclusions made in the very same report mentioned above, about the costs of drug abusers on average:
cost an employer $7,000 - $10,000 per employee annually
cost companies 300% more in medical costs and benefits
are absent up to 16 times more often
are 1/3 less productive
Interestingly, I’ve read the report and found that it doesn’t address costs or productivity and actually states that absenteeism is greater by less than 5%.
Ironic footnote to those who think that drug testing can improve productivity… I’ve wasted nearly an entire day researching this topic because my company does drug testing and I think they are wrong… which is consistent with the recent ACLU findings that random drug testing reduces productivity…
It fails, however to confirm some of the cost claims made by testing proponents:
“Drug abuse costs employers billions of dollars every year in lost productivity, absenteeism, and health care”.
Interestingly one of the pro testing sites made the following claim, with respect to conclusions made in the very same report mentioned above, about the costs of drug abusers on average:
cost an employer $7,000 - $10,000 per employee annually
cost companies 300% more in medical costs and benefits
are absent up to 16 times more often
are 1/3 less productive
Interestingly, I’ve read the report and found that it doesn’t address costs or productivity and actually states that absenteeism is greater by less than 5%.
Ironic footnote to those who think that drug testing can improve productivity… I’ve wasted nearly an entire day researching this topic because my company does drug testing and I think they are wrong… which is consistent with the recent ACLU findings that random drug testing reduces productivity…
Yikes!
Double non-tendre… I didn’t mean to post two copies of that last message. I also didn’t mean to misspell cocaine in the initial post either… I kept waiting for someone to flame me, but no one seems to care about drug testing… 'cept me.
Oh, Joey, I care. So do many others. It’s that this subject has been talked to death here. you may want to search the archives for more on this.
Company officials tend to get real hinky if you confront them with facts. You’re wasting your time. Been there, buddy.
Peace,
mangeorge
Work like you don’t need the money…
Love like you’ve never been hurt…
Dance like nobody’s watching! …(Paraphrased)
Regardless of productivity costs, companies will have drug testing because their insurance providers will often give them significant savings for doing so.
Metroshane is correct, at least for my company. Our CEO hates drug tests (and intrusive things in general), but was forced to implement random drug testings for two reasons:
It is required for certain government contract work that we do.
To protect against lawsuits. For example, if a drug-using employee cuts somebody in half with a forklift, the company can be sued because we should have known he was a drug user, and shouldn’t have been using a forklift. With drug testing, at least we can say in court that we tried eliminate drug use.
Note that none of these reasons for drug testing are expected to improve performance, reduce accidents, or provide any positive benefit at all to the company, except for protection from litigation, and to conform to government rules.
Also, we can’t just drug-test the employees involved in contracts, etc.- that’s illegal. If one employee is included in the random pool, then all of them have to be (so there is no discrimination)
Also, we can’t just drug-test the employees involved in contracts, etc.- that’s illegal. If one employee is included in the random pool, then all of them have to be (so there is no discrimination)
Arjuna34
Where I work only employees in “safety sensitive” positions are tested. Pretty convenient for managers, I’d say.
If companies were really concerned about safety they’d implement impairment testing, not random tests to see what you were doing last weekend.
BTW; I just got called in for the test today. I’ll pass, but only because of the threat of termination.
Peace,
mangeorge
So, if the forklift operator goes out and has a few too many beers for lunch and comes back and cuts somebody in half… that’s OK? The company is protected? Conversely, let’s say that the company does not drug test. The forklift operator has a genuinely unavoidable accident that has nothing to do with impairment. Later it is discovered that he has traces of Marijuana in his system from a joint he smoked 5 days ago… I think in any lawsuit, the burden of proof will have to determine that there was an impairment. This determination should not be different for any drug, including alcohol.
Apparently, you do not have your facts straight. In fact, in my company there are groups of people who do the same job as me who do not have to submit to the random drug tests. Why not? Because they joined my company as part of an acquisition and their previous contracts protect them from this violation (my company has to honor their preexisting contracts). To add insult to injury… one of the people from one of these acquired companies is an employee who was let go by my company several years back for failing the drug test. Now he’s back working for my company with no threat of testing… Clearly equality and fair play does not factor into the equation!
Obviously, if the forklift operator cuts somebody in half because he’s drunk, it’s not ok, and the company is in trouble. In this case the drug policy doesn’t help at all. Even if he’s was on drugs, the drug policy doesn’t completely protect the company from lawsuits, it just helps some in court (not even very much sometimes, but apparently enough so that it is worth the expense of doing it).
For example, if the forklift operator cuts someone in half, the victim’s family could sue us saying that we shouldn’t have let a drug user operate the forklift (of course they’d have to prove he was impaired). The forklight operator himself could also sue us for the same reason. If the operator didn’t have many assets to sue for, both parties could join together, with him admitting that he was impaired, and sue us. This isn’t as farfetched as it sounds- if the operator lies and claims he told his manager he was drug user beforehand, we’re in trouble.
Anyway, there are a million unlikely scenarios, any one of which could bankrupt the company, even if we would ultimately win in court- just being sued is very expensive. The drug testing policy just helps in our defense, and could prevent some lawsuits from getting to court. It’s like a very crappy insurance policy- it costs a lot, makes everyone unhappy, and at best it might help some in case of an accident. But those are the kinds of situations that could bankrupt a small company like ours, so it is deemed worth the price.
I agree that it doesn’t make much sense in real life- it is (for us anyway), only for the wacky world of courts and juries.
About not being able to drug test selected employees- I was simplifying a little bit there. In our case also, employees with existing contracts that have different drug testing policies are separated.