Smart Drug Testing 

If you have your work force behind your drug testing program, you'll have fewer problems. Here's what you need to know.

You're just a typical boss trying to run a respectable operation, one which in today's world, includes a drug testing program. You're not out to get anybody: you just want to know it will be safe to come to work and that your people will put in a good day on the job. Yet every time you mention drug testing, the employee lunch room gets so quiet you could hear a needle drop, even though you already know most of your people don't do drugs at all.

Drug testing has been with most of us since about 1986, when the corporate world really began to adopt workplace testing. The rationale for corporate drug testing programs is two-fold: to improve safety for both consumers and workers; and to raise productivity and quality levels in the workplace. Today, a little more than half of all major companies regularly test for drugs.

How are employees reacting to testing: and what can you do to make sure your testing program gets the support of your workforce? The following is an investigation of employee attitudes, and some suggestion of what you can do to make your testing program be a solution to problems, rather than a problem itself.

Employees themselves aren't sure how they feel about drug testing, according to a 1990 survey of railway and chemical workers by Personnel Magazine. The survey showed mixed reactions to testing overall. Since train workers are regulated by DOT and subject to mandatory testing policies, they were more likely to have undergone testing than many other employee populations. The chemical workers, only 17% of whom had undergone testing themselves, had considerably less personal experience with drug testing. Nearly 73% of the railway workers had been tested.

Transportation workers have a lower rate of positive test results than the work-place in general, with about 5.6% of tests coming back positive, compared with 11.4% of tests overall. 27% had never been tested. This may be because they have not had a periodic medical examination since the new regulations became law. In some cases, they may not have realized that the urine sample taken during the routine medical exam was tested for drugs. Most had not been tested when they'd been hired, since few drug testing programs have been in place for more than five years.

Do employees think drug testing is effective? Thirty- four percent said yes, 23% said no and 4.3% had no opinion. Since this program has been in operation for only two years, it may be hard for them to tell yet. Employees feel that alcohol abuse is as much of a problem as drug abuse. In fact, many felt it was a worse problem.

Employees strongly approve of drug testing in pre- employment screening programs. Employees generally accept and support an employer's right to obtain evidence that an applicant will not represent a safety hazard for any reason, including drugs. They also approve of testing employees who appear to be under the influence of an intoxicant.

However, they react less favorably to testing the existing workforce. Only 16% favored random testing. Somewhat more, about 45% felt periodic testing in regular physical exams was justified. Surprisingly, given widespread concern about safety issues surrounding substance abuse, only about 30% felt testing after an accident was justified. A small percentage, about 12%, felt that testing was never justified.

Employees had other complaints. Some felt that testing was a way for management to harass workers. Others had doubts about the accuracy of drug test results. Some felt that tests violated privacy or were discriminatory. Some workers insisted that management should be tested, too. Others suggested that tests be confined to situations where an employee's actions or record demonstrated some reason to suspect drugs were involved. A small number felt urinalysis in itself was humiliating. Only a small number of employees felt that drug testing in general was bad for morale.

Safety concerns seem to be very strong among both railway and chemical workers. If an accident occurs, they are likely to be seriously injured or even killed. Thus, the majority approve of pre-employment and for-cause testing. Employees in dangerous environments are just as concerned about safety as their managers.

In general, most employees and managers have a general consensus that drug-testing of current employees is justified only when there is a good reason to believe that an individual is under the influence of drugs and poses a real threat to safety and productivity at work. What really upsets employees is the quickness to jump to drug testing as a tool of evaluation when other methods exist. A long-term record of problem-free, productive employment would seem, to the employee, to out-weigh anything that might be learned from a drug-test.

In general, the large proportion of industrial employees accept the safety argument as justification for testing. Office employees tend to be less impressed by the safety argument.

Privacy is not so much an issue to employees as it is a theme which colors the entire discussion. Of course, drug users will make the argument for privacy and that what they do on their own time is their own business. While most employees don't do drugs, many of them feel uncomfortable with the invasiveness of drug-testing, and of urinalysis in particular. It's a problem with all testing programs that isn't likely to go away, and one that needs real attention from managers. In most cases, managers who respect this sensitivity have fewer problems gaining acceptance for their testing program.

It's surprising to many managers that employees are not overwhelmingly accepting of testing following an accident, but they aren't. Only about 30% think post-accident testing is justified. The problem may lie in the way most post- accident testing is handled. Employees don't resent testing when it's apparent from the circumstances that people might have been intoxicated, or when there is probable cause to think that substance abuse was involved. However, employees resent automatic testing, even when operator error isn't even a question. It annoys them when poorly maintained equipment fails, causing an accident, and the company tests the employees involved for drugs. That annoyance is understandable. Employees who have good work records and no history of substance abuse are offended by the suggestion that the accident might have been the result of drinking or drugs. Some consultants contend that automatic testing might prevent people from reporting accidents. "Who wants to report an accident when doing so might automatically mean you'd have to provide a urine sample under observation?"

You can't talk about drug testing without talking about loyalty, trust and respect. Given that It's a common condition of employment to feel that the boss doesn't trust or respect you, it's not surprising that being tested for drugs brings up unpleasant feelings. Naturally, employees who do drugs don't like it, but employees who don't do drugs may also feel uncomfortable, even if they intellectually support the program. Most of us feel they should be tested: few of us think it's necessary for us to be tested. Employees are often proud of the company they work for and of their term of employment there. They want to know the company feels the same pride in them. When asked, the most common sentiment about the purpose of drug testing was that it is de-signed to harass workers and provide an excuse to fire them. Managers may think this kind of thinking is absurd, but they should know it is very real.

This resentment finds particularly fertile ground when testing is not applied equally to everyone. When some types of employees are tested and not others, or when management is not tested while the lowest paid workers are. The fact is, substance abuse isn't based on the color of the collar. There is as much substance abuse on the top floor as on the shop floor. Companies that don't recognize this have a basic flaw in their testing program, and in their corporate climate. The goal of testing is to improve productivity and safety, not to lower morale. The two are not mutually incompatible.

First, level the playing field by testing all employees equally. If you're doing periodic testing of current employees, start at the top. If the president isn't willing to take the container and step into the restroom; he has no right to ask anyone else to.

Second, start your program with communication. Let employees know the reason for the testing and involve them in a problem-solving dialogue that gets at the root of the safety and productivity issues. Let them be a part of making the testing decision and planning the testing program.

Third, drug testing should be part of a comprehensive program for safety and productivity -- not a Band-Aid solution. If you're serious about safety and productivity, you'll also be testing for alcohol abuse, for employee theft and for problems with absenteeism and timeliness.

You'll also focus on providing assistance to employees with substance abuse problems, or at least providing an atmosphere where they can deal with problems out front, rather than having to be secretive.

Almost all your employees want to work in a safe environment. It's up to you to make sure they don't see testing as one of the dangers of the workplace.

(Reprinted with permission from The Advisor, vol 6, No 2. Copyright 1991, all rights reserved. Published by Delphi House, N. Sam Houston Parkway E., Suite 990, Houston TX 77060. Publisher: Carl E. King. Editor: Dain Dunston)