Drug testing in the workplace [Forum Archive]

-->

Pages: 1

Drug testing in the workplace

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: TJ Cline

For the sake of argument lets say this is for jobs that do not put the publics saftey at risk.

Posted by: TJ Cline

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation
Chemical dependency and drug testing in the workplace.

Osterloh JD, Becker CE.

Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of California, School of Medicine, San Francisco.

Urine testing for drug use in the workplace is now widespread, with the prevalence of positive drug tests in the work force being 0% to 15%. The prevalence of marijuana use is highest, and this can be reliably tested. Though it is prudent to rid the workplace of drug use, there is little scientific study on the relationship of drug use and workplace outcomes, such as productivity and safety. Probable-cause testing and preemployment testing are the most common applications. Random testing has been less accepted owing to its higher costs, unresolved legal issues, and predictably poor test reliability. Legal issues have focused on the right to policy, discrimination, and the lack of due process. The legal cornerstone of a good program is a policy that is planned and agreed on by both labor and management, which serves both as a contract and as a procedure in which expectations and consequences are known. The National Institute on Drug Abuse is certifying laboratories doing employee drug testing. Testing methods when done correctly are less prone to error than in the past, but screening tests can be defeated by adulterants. Although the incidence of false-positive results is low, such tests are less reliable when the prevalence of drug abuse is also low.

Posted by: bigss75

They should drug test rec. drugs, steroids arent one of them.

Posted by: TJ Cline

http://www.globalchange.com/drugtest.htm
Drug testing boom at work

On current trends within two years it will be almost impossible for recreational drug users to get a job with larger companies. Drug testing at work is probably the single most effective weapon we have against adult substance abuse. It is a proven, low cost strategy which identifies those needing help, reduces demand, cuts accidents and sick leave, improves attendance and increases productivity. (Half page feature by Dr Patrick Dixon, Director Global Change Ltd, originally published in the Times 5/11/98 but even more sharply relevant today).

Yet drug testing is (or rather was) highly controversial: it penalises users with positive drug tests that can bear little or no relation to work performance, encourages knee-jerk dismissal and discrimination at interview. It costs money, invades privacy and smacks of authoritarianism.

Despite all this, almost overnight it has become fashionable to talk of testing millions of people at work for both alcohol and drugs. Just over six months ago the idea seemed so extreme that the government cut it out of the White Paper altogether - with small concessions for prisons and roadside.

In a dramatic policy shift, drugs czar Keith Halliwell and government Ministers have started encouraging drug testing by employers. They are following a quiet revolution, largely unreported because firms have been scared of drug tests by bad publicity.

The government's own Forensic Science Agency alone carried out over a million workplace drug tests last year, with a rush of interest from transport, construction, manufacturing and financial services industries. Last month the International Petroleum Exchange joined London Transport and many others in random drug testing.

This stampede to test follows spectacular drug testing success in America when many had declared the mega-war against drugs all but lost. The drugs industry accounts for 8% of all international trade according to the UN. Education, customs, police, crop destruction and prison sentences have failed to deliver so drug testing has become highly attractive, even at the cost of civil liberties.

80% of all large companies already spend over £200m a year testing for drugs at work, affecting 40% of the US work force. By 2005 up to 80% of all workers will be covered by drug tests.

But Britain also has a significant and growing problem with addiction. 8% of men and 2% of women in Britain abuse drugs or alcohol, costing at least £3bn a year in accidents and absence alone.

Every office, factory, train operator, airline, construction company and hospital is affected with serious risks to public health and profitability. Workplace drug testing in America is being forced on employers for economic and safety reasons. Drug companies that don't test will go bust. Their insurance premiums will go through the roof.

US studies show that substance abusers (including alcohol) are 33% less productive, three times as likely to be late, four times as likely to hurt others at work or themselves, five times as likely to sue for compensation, and ten times as likely to miss work.

When the State of Ohio introduced random drug testing they found absenteeism dropped 91%, there were 88% less problems with supervisors and 97% decrease in on-the-job injuries. These results are so striking that many companies are now screening job applicants.

One plastics company realised many workers were taking amphetamines to keep awake after they lengthened shifts to twelve hours. Staff found tell-tale powder residues and scratch marks on equipment. They estimated
that 20% of the workforce were taking drugs. After random drug testing was introduced drug-taking fell to negligible levels.

A Wisconsin cardboard factory was contacted recently by their insurers who were worried about high levels of injuries. Random drug testing was introduced and accidents fell 72% the following year, with an 80% decrease in days lost as a result.

Health and safety will be the driving force at first in the UK. Take doctors: a recent report in the Lancet revealed that 37% of male junior doctors were using cannabis and 14% cocaine, amphetamines, barbiturates, LSD, ecstasy, magic mushrooms or other substances. The figure for women was 12%. But that's just the ones willing to admit it.

The BMA's own figures suggest up to 10% of all doctors may abuse either alcohol or illegal drugs, including cocaine, crack and heroin. That's almost 10,000 doctors, treating perhaps 200,000 patients every day. Do you want to be operated on by a surgeon who is suffering from withdrawal? In an operating theatre with two anaesthetists, a consultant and two junior doctors there is a 50% risk that one of the team is a substance abuser.

I am appalled at the irresponsibility of the BMA, who have long been opposed to random testing of doctors. They say we are sensible enough to come forward for help, and those that don't are informed upon. Both these claims are complete fiction, judging by the vast gap between numbers with dependency and the few who have been identified. The BMA's resistance to random testing of doctors is scandalous and no doubt will be over-ruled soon.

We will never know how many have died under the knife of an intoxicated surgeon or as a result of a physician's drug-clouded mind. Doctors don't like admitting errors, even in court long after the event, by which time
evidence of substance abuse has vanished.

If you're too drunk or doped to drive, or drive a train, you shouldn't be operating - nor working a crane or cement mixer for that matter. Nor should you be defending someone in court nor making huge financial decisions on which other people's future will depend.

Testing is cheap. Breathalysers cost £40 with virtually no running costs while £30 urine tests for drugs only have to be carried out on a few to be effective. For example, London Transport tests just 5% of drivers a year.

That means each worker is checked on average once every twenty years. Hardly a mass invasion of privacy, yet more than enough to be a powerful deterrent. In America positive test rates have fallen from 13.6% to 4.9% in a decade. This is a method that works.

However random testing is barbaric unless introduced sensitively as part of a comprehensive package of education and access to confidential treatment. The primary aim should not be to sack, but to discourage abuse, offer help, to treat. The most effective programmes are those where the workforce approves a humane, compassionate and fair anti-drugs policy. However those who place others lives at serious risk must expect to face
the consequences.

There are many unresolved problems with testing: for example cannabis tests are almost useless with positive tests weeks after use. What blood levels are acceptable for illegal drugs? Who should be tested? How often and what action should be taken?

Some argue for tests only where performance is poor. But by then a fellow worker may have lost an arm, a leg, an eye or a hand - a patient her own life. The aim of testing is to prevent mistakes, not to allocate blame
after the event.

One thing is clear: drug and alcohol testing will continue to spread fast regardless of government support, as the most practical and cost effective way to strengthen existing drugs and alcohol policies at work. It will be
introduced well or very badly. Either we take hold of the issue now or the issue will take hold of us.

Posted by: TJ Cline

http://www.aclu.org/WorkplaceRights/...list.cfm?c=178
Workplace Rights : Drug Testing - Press Releases View All
Appeals Court Halts Seattle's Suspicionless Urine-Testing of City Employees (10/03/2000)

SEATTLE, WA--In a unanimous ruling, the Washington Court of Appeals today said that a city program of requiring urine tests of successful applicants for employment violates the state constitution.
City of Hollywood Urine Drug Testing Policy Declared Unconstitutional by Federal Court (04/13/2000)

MIAMI -- A court today struck down the as unconstitutional a City of Hollywood policy that required that all new city employees to undergo urine screening for drugs, the American Civil Liberties Union said.
Report Calls Employee Drug Testing a Bad Investment (12/15/1999)
Drug testing has become a routine part of the hiring process in America, the Los Angeles Times reported on December 15th. Most large employers -- 70%, according to the American Management Association -- test a candidate when they are ready to make a job offer.
New ACLU Report Debunks Workplace Urine Testing, Citing High Costs, Low Dividends, Junk Science (09/01/1999)

NEW YORK -- In a special report issued today, the American Civil Liberties Union is urging corporate America to drop workplace urine testing, citing evidence that the tests do not pay dividends in decreased accidents and absenteeism or increased efficiency and productivity.
Hair Tests: Unreliable and Discriminatory (06/27/1999)

NEW YORK -- Three years ago, Jerome McCall, 30, was kicked off the police force after failing the Police Department's new hair test for drugs. Samples of his hair tested positive for cocaine, but McCall insists that he is innocent -- and that the tests discriminate against African-Americans, the New York Daily News reported today.

Posted by: TJ Cline

http://www.drugpolicy.org/law/drugtesting/
Drug Testing

In 1986, the Reagan administration began to heavily promote drug testing in the workplace as part of the escalating War on Drugs. Since then, drug testing has proliferated from safety-sensitive jobs to non-safety sensitive jobs to pre-employment job testing to suspicionless drug testing of public high school students to mandatory drug testing of applicants for public benefits. Drug testing is also a near universal feature of the criminal justice system in the United States, with most probationers and parolees required to undergo drug testing regardless of the nature of their underlying offense or history of drug use.

This proliferation has occurred despite the paucity of evidence that widespread suspicionless drug testing results in safer workplaces and schools, reduces substance abuse problems, combats crime, or is more effective at achieving these various goals than less costly-and less intrusive-alternatives (e.g., performance testing for workers, honest drug education and extracurricular activities for high school students, etc.).

While drug testing has expanded, so too have drug testing technologies-from urine testing to hair testing, sweat testing, saliva testing and the use of so-called "Drug Recognition Experts." Positive results from these drug tests are used to impose a wide array of sanctions, from revocation of probation or parole and immediate return to jail or prison, to loss of parental or custody rights over children, to dismissal from work, inability to participate in extracurricular activities, denial of public benefits, and so on. Unfortunately, many of the newer drug testing technologies are not sufficiently reliable and yield a significant number of "false positive" test results - that is, drug screens that appear to show drug use when none has taken place. In addition, an increasing number of prescription and over-the-counter medications and even foods produce positive drug test results even though the person being tested did not ingest drugs. The unreliability of many drug testing technologies is a matter of grave concern, particularly when the negative consequences that flow from positive drug tests are so enormous.

Lastly, drug testing has largely been detached from its therapeutic underpinnings. A true positive drug test provides little information except that a particular substance has been ingested. It does not indicate when that substance was ingested, if the person was under the influence of drugs at the time of testing or while on the job, if the person can carry out his or her parenting responsibilities, if the person suffers from an addiction disorder (or is simply a one-time or occasional drug taker), or even if the person knowingly ingested the substance. It is a rare employer, school district, government bureaucracy or law enforcement agency that uses drug testing not to sanction individuals but to determine whether the people being drug tested suffer from addiction and, if so, to provide those persons with treatment options and support services.

Drug Policy Alliance, together with the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project, and the National Advocates for Pregnant Women is involved in a variety of legal challenges to expansive drug testing policies and unreliable drug testing technologies. These challenges attempt to uphold and strengthen the right to privacy found in the Constitution, ensure due process for all persons, and to promote rational drug testing policies rooted in science and public health rather than conjecture and fear.

Posted by: Stu

lol who p-funk talking to in that quote?

Posted by: TJ Cline

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu

lol who p-funk talking to in that quote?

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/sh...t=53990&page=2

Posted by: The Monkey Man

NO drug testing unless you suspect an employee is using OTJ...

Otherwise put the money into better insurance coverage for employees

Posted by: brogers

I vote no, simply because it doesn't matter if they are using drugs, only their performance at work. If they don't show up often, unreliable, w/e, you don't need a drug test to determine they're a bad employee, personal business, is just that personal.

Posted by: Tough Old Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

For the sake of argument lets say this is for jobs that do not put the publics saftey at risk.

I get what your saying, but trying to find any job that doesn't involve the public would be hard to do. I think they should test for recreaitonal drugs prior to hiring.
I just couldn't imagine being pull over by a cop waving his pistola at me and being on heroine or some other exotic drug.
Some problems with drug test although really aren't going to help if the person or persons know there drug. Take coke for instant. It only last in the system for 5 days. So if he were to test on the 6th day, the test would turn out negitive

Posted by: TJ Cline

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tough Old Man

I get what your saying, but trying to find any job that doesn't involve the public would be hard to do. I think they should test for recreaitonal drugs prior to hiring.
I just couldn't imagine being pull over by a cop waving his pistola at me and being on heroine or some other exotic drug.
Some problems with drug test although really aren't going to help if the person or persons know there drug. Take coke for instant. It only last in the system for 5 days. So if he were to test on the 6th day, the test would turn out negitive

By the public safety I meant: an airline pilot, school bus driver, military ( those guys have bombs and guns) cops, Doctors, all Polititions ect

Posted by: TrojanMan60563

I don't think testing should be done...expect for those jobs like foreman said....drivers and etc..

Posted by: TJ Cline

Supreme Court Strikes Down Drug Testing of Politicians

For the first time ever, the United States Supreme Court has stuck down a government-ordered drug testing program. The court has previously upheld testing of customs workers, railroad employees and student athletes.

The 8-1 decision was announced on Tuesday, April 15, 1997. The case involved a Georgia law which required political candidates to undergo drug testing before they could appear on the ballot.

This case, like the previous drug-testing cases, was based on the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the decision, noted: "The Fourth Amendment shields society against that state action."

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was the lone dissenter in the decision.

(Editor's Note: The court provides the first view of where it will limit drug testing. It is of note that Rehnquist wrote a rare dissent. Conservatism normally staunchly defends individual rights against government intervention. Conservative support for suspicionless drug testing has always been somewhat of an abberation. This case demonstrates the split between Rehnquist's brand of conservatism and that of the other members of the court. wln)

(NTList note: This is a blatent example of hipocracy...To say that testing the public is legal while saying the testing of politicians is illegal clearly serves those with the special interests)

Posted by: TJ Cline

http://www.petitiononline.com/dhr4gf34/petition.html
To: U.S. Congress

I am one of the millions of American citizens who are sick and tired of our politicians hypocrisy in this "War on Drugs". I support the implementation of mandatory drug testing for all politicians and public officials, because if they can do it to us, it is only fair that we can do it to them.

Sincerely,

Posted by: PreMier

I support it. Every company has a right to hire who they want, and if they feel like making sure the employees are clean, then so be it.

Posted by: raab

War on Drugs what a laugh. It's like sending a guy with a flyswatter to wipe out a nest of killer bees. This is a prime example of our government in action. Drugs have killed more people in one year that we have lost in Iraq to date. If you are looking for weapons of mass destruction just think about a kilo of heroin. Or tell the tobacco farmers to find another crop. If the tobacco companies had any sense of morality they would burn down their plants and beg for forgiveness from the American people for the great amount of destruction they have heaped on us.

Posted by: JiveTurkey

I'm in the military and agree with BigS about testing for rec. drugs. I wouldn't want any of my coworkers being all screwed up on coke or pot before we get into some shit, but when shit happens, it wouldn't bother me one bit to know that they've been using gear and can handle one OR two of the other guys.

Posted by: LAM

the main problem that I have with drug testing in the work place is that it descriminates between recreational drugs and prescription drugs. I would rather work next to a person who was stoned on pot than another that's on valium, anti-depressants and pain killers.

Posted by: The Monkey Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

I vote no, simply because it doesn't matter if they are using drugs, only their performance at work. If they don't show up often, unreliable, w/e, you don't need a drug test to determine they're a bad employee, personal business, is just that personal.

Wow, I agree -

Posted by: Pepper

Spoken like someone who has never had employees.

We don't test, but I think we have the right too. If you don't like it, work for someone else.

When you have employees, your ass can be sued for stuff they do...damn right I want to know if I have someone breaking the law and using mind-altering drugs!

Posted by: Pepper

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

For the sake of argument lets say this is for jobs that do not put the publics saftey at risk.

How many jobs like that are there? My employees are accountants...can't kill anyone that way, right?

Except, we send them out to clients every freaking day. Someone is driving.

Posted by: TJ Cline

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepper

How many jobs like that are there? My employees are accountants...can't kill anyone that way, right?

Except, we send them out to clients every freaking day. Someone is driving.

I think its clear what my point was. If you want to twist every job in the world as being a potential death risk then go ahead. The janitor at Burger King might be high on weed and kill you when he falls down and hits you in the head with a mop.

Quote by pepper
We don't test, but I think we have the right too. If you don't like it, work for someone else.
spoken like a true Republican

This is just another way of limiting peoples choices and keeping them as non productive drains on the system.

Posted by: The Monkey Man

If you are a manager worth his/her salt...
You will know your people...

If you run a team workplace enviroment.
You will find out who's doing what...

Then... You fire them -

Posted by: lnvanry

Foreman that repulican perspective stems from the insurance companies....The real "problem" of this situtation.

My families company MUST test ALL employees including office secretaries. The isunrance company we deal w/ (who also gives us a low premium) requires it...No the copmany does have anything to do w/ public safety. It deals w/ nano-measurement.

Posted by: The Monkey Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by lnvanry

Foreman that repulican perspective stems from the insurance companies....The real "problem" of this situtation.

My families company MUST test ALL employees including office secretaries. The isunrance company we deal w/ (who also gives us a low premium) requires it...No the copmany does have anything to do w/ public safety. It deals w/ nano-measurement.

This is a whole different story

Posted by: lnvanry

how...companies drug test b/c the are required to.

Posted by: TrojanMan60563

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAM

the main problem that I have with drug testing in the work place is that it descriminates between recreational drugs and prescription drugs. I would rather work next to a person who was stoned on pot than another that's on valium, anti-depressants and pain killers.

I don't think that is a fair statement. I take Xanax for anxiety and I am never a risk in the work place. I take it when I am having an attack or when I start feeling a panic attack and then it just adjusts my body back to normal. It doesn't get me high when taken correctly.

Posted by: LAM

I wasn't trying to attack users of those types of meds. but our society has come to a point where prescription meds are now used on a daily basis by the majority of the poplulation. a person who happens to smoke a joint on his/her own free time at home can lose their job, etc. while another who has a legal prescription for certain meds can be just as "high" with no fear of reprisal.

if not for the direct competition that hemp materials would have given Dupont for their new "nylon fibers" marijuana may have never been made ilegal in this country in the 30's. but as we know there are no lobyists for mj in DC.

for the most part drug testing in the workplace is all about politcs and not about public safety and/or health concerns.

Posted by: TJ Cline

11 to 11, this one is close

Posted by: JiveTurkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

The janitor at Burger King might be high on weed and kill you when he falls down and hits you in the head with a mop.

Damn, I never thought about this.... I'll have to watch out for this if I ever go. Maybe I should warn my family too.

Posted by: TJ Cline

hotbody_08 just curious, are you a Republican?

Posted by: 007

Has anyone actually been tested positive for steriods or GH for their work drug screening? Do they include steriods/GH in their testing, or is it only recreational drugs?

Posted by: section8

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

By the public safety I meant: an airline pilot, school bus driver, military ( those guys have bombs and guns) cops, Doctors, all Polititions ect

I voted yes just because I think that people like this should be tested. Now to the extent of what they are testing for should be limited, to say something like coke, pot, heroin. These can affect job performance and so on. Steroids should not be tested, hell they should be legal in the first place.

Posted by: FullGo

since the great archeologist section8 dug this old thread up im gona reply. i voted yes. test every new empolyee and then do randoms. as i am an electrician and i need not some spaced out SOB turning on breakers and frying my azz. although i sometime wonder what 255lbs of chemicaly enhanced mofo would smell like frying. LMAO

Posted by: section8

Opps. Apparently someone voted so it got bumped, I didn't realize that this thread was that old. I just saw it and voted.

Posted by: SJ69

Why is it ANYONES business what YOU do in YOUR free time?????

Posted by: FullGo

Quote:

Originally Posted by SJ69

Why is it ANYONES business what YOU do in YOUR free time?????

its not about what u do in your free time . let just say u work for me and i test u and u show positive. and u admit thats just some stuff i done over the weekend. am i just supposed to let it go? hell i dont know if u done over the weekend, last night,yesterday,today or when . as an employer its a chance u can not take. when it is a drug that impairs your ability to do your job.

Posted by: SJ69

Quote:

Originally Posted by FullGo

Lets assume I am doing my job well, as I always do, then how's it any of your business?

Posted by: FullGo

[quote=SJ69]Lets assume I am doing my job well, as I always do, then how's it any of your business?[/QUOTE
dude im not hating on ya i dont care what u do . im just saying any good business is not gona tolerate it. its just too much of a risk .

Posted by: SJ69

[quote=FullGo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SJ69

Lets assume I am doing my job well, as I always do, then how's it any of your business?[/QUOTE
dude im not hating on ya i dont care what u do . im just saying any good business is not gona tolerate it. its just too much of a risk .

I'm not sayin' thats what I do, just that it's nobody's business what I do, as long as I do the job I'm being paid to do.

Posted by: Du

I see no reason to penalize for responsible use. So, I disagree with testing as a routine. However, I think that testing with reason is OK basis published & known guidelines. For example, if one of Pepper's crack addict accountants hits someone on the way to a client, then test him & increase the penalty if guilty.

Any responsible supervisor should be able to tell if their worker is fucked up or not before allowing him on the road. This is just a step in the wrong direction, another step in someone else controlling your life.

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37