Workplace Drug Testing
Today, in some industries, taking a drug test is as routine as filling out a job application.
In fact, workplace drug testing is up 277 percent from 1987 - despite the fact that
random drug testing is unfair, often inaccurate and unproven as a means of stopping
drug use.
But because there are few laws protecting our privacy in the workplace, millions of
American workers are tested yearly - even though they aren't suspected of drug
use.
Employers have the right to expect workers not to be high or drunk on the job. But
they shouldn't have the right to require employees to prove their innocence by taking a
drug test.
That's not how America should work.
Invasion and Error
However routine drug tests have become, they're still intrusive. Often, another person
is there to observe the employee to ensure there is no specimen tampering. Even
indirect observation can be degrading; typically, workers must remove their outer
garments and urinate in a bathroom in which the water supply has been turned off.
The lab procedure is a second invasion of privacy. Urinalysis reveals not only the
presence of illegal drugs, but also the existence of many other physical and medical
conditions, including genetic predisposition to disease - or pregnancy. In 1988, the
Washington, D.C. Police Department admitted it used urine samples collected for drug
tests to screen female employees for pregnancy - without their knowledge or consent.
Furthermore, human error in the lab, or the test's failure to distinguish between legal
and illegal substances, can make even a small margin of error add up to a huge
potential for false positive results. In 1992, an estimated 22 million tests were
adminstered. If five percent yielded false positive results (a conservative estimate of
false positive rates) that means 1.1 million people who could have been fired, or denied
jobs - because of a mistake.
"I waited for the attendant to turn her back before pulling down my
pants, but she told me she had to watch everything I did. I am a
40-year-old mother of three: nothing I have ever done in my life equals
or deserves the humiliation, degradation and mortification I felt."
- From a letter describing a workplace drug test.
Tests That Fail
Claims of billions of dollars lost in employee productivity are based on guesswork, not
real evidence.
Drug abuse in the workplace affects a relatively small percentage of workers. A 1994
National Academy of Sciences report found workplace drug use "ranges from a
modest to a moderate extent," and noted that much of reported drug use "may be
single incident, perhaps even at events like office parties."
Furthermore, drug tests are not work-related because they do not measure on-the-job
impairment. A positive drug test only reveals that a drug was ingested at some time in
the past. Nor do they distinguish between occasional and habitual use.
Drug testing is designed to detect and punish conduct that is usually engaged in off-
duty and off the employer's premises - that is, in private. Employers who conduct
random drug tests on workers who are not suspected of using drugs are policing
private behavior that has no impact on job performance.
Far From Foolproof
Sometimes drug tests fail to distinguish between legal and illegal substances.
Depronil, a prescription drug used to treat Parkinson's disease, has shown up
as an amphetamine on standard drug tests. Over-the-counter antiinflammatory
drugs like Ibuprofen have shown up positive on the marijuana test. Even the
poppy seeds found in baked goods can produce a positive result for heroin.
About Safety-Sensitive Occupations
Alertness and sobriety are, of course, imperative for certain occupations, such as train
engineers, airline pilots, truck drivers and others. Yet even in these jobs, random drug
testing does not guarantee safety. Firstly, drug-related employee impairment in
safety-sensitive jobs is rare. There has never been a commercial airline accident linked
to pilot drug use. And even after a 1994 Amtrak accident in which several lives were
lost, investigators discovered the train engineer had a well known history of alcohol,
not drug, abuse.
Computer-assisted performance tests, which measure hand-eye coordination and
response time, are a better way of detecting whether employees are up to the job.
NASA, for example, has long used task-performance tests to determine whether
astronauts and pilots are unfit for work - whether the cause is substance abuse, fatigue,
or physical illness.
Drug tests don't prevent accidents because they don't address the root problems that
lead to substance abuse. But good management and counseling can. Employee
assistance programs (EAPs) help people facing emotional, health, financial or
substance abuse problems that can affect job performance. EAP counselors decide
what type of help is needed: staff support, inpatient treatment, AA meetings, and the
like. In this context, the goal is rehabilitation and wellness - not punishment.
Employers need to kick the drug test habit.
SOURCES: American Management Association survey, "Workplace Drug Testing
and Drug Abuse Policies"; R. DeCresce, Drug Testing in the Workplace (BNA,
1989); Under the Influence? Drugs and the American Workforce, National
Academy of Sciences, 1994; J.P. Morgan, "The 'Scientific' Justification for Urine Drug
Testing," University of Kansas L.R., 1988.
Back to top
