Make Drug Testing a Positive Experience 

In January 1988, when drug testing in the workplace was relatively new, an Indiana paper bag manufacturer introduced a tough mandatory drug-testing program. Employees asked for the chance to discuss the program, but the company's management drew the battle lines by refusing to discuss the testing policy with them.

The employees were so offended by the way the program was presented to them that they challenged the company policy under their union's collective bargaining agreement. The company was unprepared. It was not able to show any evidence of prior substance abuse problems in the workplace, nor was it able to document any negative effects of drug use in the company. The result was a long and bitter legal fight.

As that incident illustrates, a drug-testing program can become a nightmare of bad feelings and legal entanglements. At its best, however, it can be a positive experience for everyone in the company and an important way to reduce a variety of workplace problems, from absenteeism to employee theft.

From a security manager's point of view, keeping drugs out of the workplace is a vital component of the struggle to build a crime-free work force. Yet, whenever someone mentions drug testing, employees clam up. What steps can the security manager take so that the program will not backfire?

Build the case. The better security is at intelligence gathering, the better off it will be when it comes to presenting a drug-testing program to management and employees. Too many managers make the mistake of diving into a substance abuse testing program without knowing what or where their specific problems are.

National statistics are readily available from a number of sources. Data that breaks down workplace drug use for a company's state and city is also available. This is important information to have because geographic differences in substance abuse patterns may lead security managers to look for different substance abuse problems in different locations.

But the most important intelligence to develop is the information that comes from the company's own work force. Employee input surveys can provide this material.

An employee input survey offers workers the chance to tell security what they know is going on inside the company- problems managers may not be aware of--from unhappiness with the condition of the restrooms to employee theft. The best surveys contain integrity and substance abuse indicators, general questions about theft and substance abuse in the workplace, customized questions about the company, and an invitation to the employee to offer his or her comments.

Other sources of vital information are available that the security manager can tap into, and they are right inside the company. When substance abuse testing was set up for General Motors (GM), for example, it tapped into the company's employee assistance program (EAP). GM had conducted its own study of medical costs in the company's huge employee base. From this information, an accurate profile was developed of both the scope of substance abuse problems in the company and the cost. From the EAP's data, hard figures on the costs related to alcohol abuse were also developed.

The human resources personnel should have information about rates of absenteeism, accidents, workers' compensation claims, and referrals to substance abuse programs. Those company numbers can be compared to industry averages. If the employee base shows higher-than-normal rates in any of these four fields, the organization has good reason to believe that substance abuse problems are driving up the cost of doing business. Security can use the figures to project increased productivity and lowered costs. Those calculations provide the information security needs to sell a substance abuse testing program to management.

Communicate Clearly. Once security has the information, the department should communicate the results to employees by using, for example, a company newsletter, a memo, or even a flyer in pay packets. What security should not do is issue a terse statement on the department's letterhead about its intentions to clean up the company. Morale and diplomacy are the keys to success. The job is to highlight the positives and negatives of the situation and get a dialogue started.

The scope of the problem should be stated and expressed in costs of accident reduction, productivity, and health. Employees should be told that the company is looking for ways to address the problem. This published information is the beginning of a substance abuse education project--an important part of any substance abuse prevention program. The information can explain what the study has revealed and inform employees that action is being taken to end these problems.

Employees are the company's allies in this fight. Study after study shows workers of all types giving employers the green light on drug and alcohol testing. A recent Gallup survey shows 97 percent of workers expressed favorable opinions about testing, and 26 percent said it was a necessity. Fewer than 3 percent said it was not needed. This positive attitude may spring from concerns about the effects of substance abuse on the workplace.

Nearly 33 percent of the workers in the study said they knew of co-workers who used drugs; nearly 25 percent knew of substance abuse on the job. They noted that the presence of drugs meant increased crime at work and said it seriously affected their ability to get their work done. Surprisingly, more than 50 percent supported random testing of current workers, even without specific cause for suspicion.

Even employees who support testing in the abstract may react negatively when efforts are made to test them. Privacy will become a major issue. Drug users will make the argument for privacy, saying what they do on their own time is their own business. While most employees do not use drugs or abuse alcohol, many of them are personally uncomfortable with the invasiveness of drug testing, particularly with urinalysis.

Employees who have good work records and no history of substance abuse can be offended when the company suggests their involvement in an accident might have been caused by drinking or drugs. In most cases, security managers who respect this sensitivity have fewer problems gaining acceptance for their drug programs.

Negative attitudes about testing find fertile ground when the process is not applied equally to everyone, when some managers are not tested while the lowest paid workers are. yet, substance abuse is not based on the color of the collar. Substance abuse is as much of a problem on the top floor as it is on the shop floor. The security manager must recognize this.

The goal of testing is to improve productivity and safety, not to lower morale. The first step is to level the playing field by testing all employees equally. If security is performing periodic testing of current employees, the policy should start with senior management. If the director of security is not willing to take the cup and step into the stall, he or she has no right to ask anyone else to do so. The second step is to make sure that the testing program is part of an overall commitment to safety and productivity, not a partial solution.

Security should plan carefully and get the word out early. Good planning is critical to the success of any program. Developing a written substance abuse policy takes time. Clear-cut and well thought-out procedures for the testing process are needed, along with carefully considered plans for how the company will respond to applicants and employees who test positive.

Plenty of publications provide samples of policy and procedure papers that other organizations have used effectively. The security department can probably adapt one of these published policy statements for its own use. Security should not, however, play lawyer. A published drug policy is the equivalent of a legal document. It should receive the blessing of the company's legal counsel before it sees the light of day.

When policies are close to being formulated, the company should publish a written announcement of what it is doing. It is not appropriate to give the details of the plan, just the reasons. The statement can emphasize the need for testing in terms of safety and productivity, without focusing on employee theft or moral issues. To do so might sound insulting to those receiving the memo or newsletter.

When the testing program is ready to roll, the company should let employees know all about it. Group meetings are one way to get the word out. Any presentations of the drug testing pro-gram should be done only by people who understand the program and its aims and who are trained in presenting it in a positive way. Help should be sought from the company's public relations group.

Supervisors or managers should not present the idea of substance abuse testing to their work groups. If they do, there is a risk of other people's relationships getting in the way of the communication of the program. Managers should not be put in the position of having to be responsible for explaining, defending, or administering substance abuse testing.

The company should announce that testing of applicants will begin immediately, with testing of current employees following in thirty days. This provides casual drug users the chance to clean up their act before the program goes into effect, which is exactly the desired effect. Prevention, not detection, is the objective.

Select a lab. It is critical that the company select a laboratory carefully. It should pick the highest quality lab and make sure it is certified by the National Institute of Drug Awareness (NIDA). NIDA only certifies labs that are specialists in forensic drug testing. Personnel of a non-NIDA lab may not be trained in, or consistently follow, procedures that will stand up in court. The lab should test a sample twice, first with a screening test, usually enzyme multiplied immuno-assay testing (EMIT) and second, if the first test is positive, a confirmation test using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) testing.

The lab should be required to keep all positive samples for one year. Employees will appreciate knowing that if they ever test positive for substance abuse, the sample will be available for them to test independently at another lab.

Test the employees. Everyone in the security department, with the security manager at the head of the line, should be tested first. If possible, senior company officers should join the ranks of those tested to kick off the program. This policy is about leadership, and leadership begins at the top. When drug testing was established for the employees of the city of Houston, the mayor was the first person tested.

The company's best line of defense is in the pre- employment screening process. If personnel could just keep from ever hiring another substance abuser, the company would solve 90 percent of the problem. If everyone coming into the company were drug-free, current substance abusers would either expose themselves through poor performance or would eventually leave the company.

After applicants, the next line of defense is current employees in critical safety areas. If the company employs drivers or pilots who are regulated by the Department of Transportation (DOT), it should already be complying with DOT regulations on mandatory testing. Anyone who operates heavy equipment, toxic chemicals, or other hazardous material should be tested.

Next, security should institute a random testing program of all employees at all levels of the company. Until the last couple of years, the conventional wisdom held out against random testing. Now random testing is widely accepted, as long as it is truly random and democratic.

If the company is serious about safety and productivity, it will also test for alcohol. While illegal drug usage attracts the most attention, the Employee Assistance Society of North America says alcohol abuse remains the bigger problem, accounting for twice the dollar losses each year to business. It adds that up to 40 percent of industrial deaths and 47 percent of industrial accidents are directly related to alcohol.

Testing for alcohol presents some problems. Because of the short life of blood alcohol, it can be difficult to detect in most urinalysis drug-testing programs. One solution is the use of an inexpensive disposable alcohol detector, like BreathScan, which has been used successfully at GM.

Establish a chain of custody. Chain of custody is a record of every person who has had control or possession of a drug-test urine sample, from the donor to the administrator to the lab personnel who handle the sample. If the program does not have an unbroken chain of custody, the company does not have a drug test. If an employee contests urinalysis testing results, the first place the attorney will look is the chain of custody. Procedures will have to withstand the rules of evidence that govern the legal acceptability of information presented in court. If the company follows these procedures, it will have no problems. Anyone involved in the testing process must be trained in chain of custody procedures.

Set collection procedures. Generally, test specimens are collected by members of the security staff or medical staff who are trained specifically in chain of custody and drug test collection procedures. If the company has to use an outside contractor, it should select one that specializes in drug testing. The company should not assume that a local doctor's office is adequate. It's not.

The security manager cannot expect anyone in the company to be happy at having to leave work and drive somewhere to give a urine sample or a drug test. If they are treated rudely, the company has a problem. This is a time to treat people with kindness, respect, and consideration. Whatever process is used, post-test surveys of employees are recommended. Workers should be given a questionnaire and a self-addressed, stamped envelope. They should check off on the questionnaire how they were treated and be provided with space to make complaints or suggestions.

Collection is not an activity managers themselves should carry out. That approach would introduce embarrassment into the process, almost guaranteeing to sabotage any goodwill built along the way.

The decision to specify observed or unobserved collection is one the company should care-fully consider. It is not necessary to witness the actual urination. Courts take invasion of privacy seriously. It is important that personnel go out of their way not to make the donors feel intimidated or any more uncomfortable than necessary. Once the sample has been taken, it should be delivered overnight to the lab to protect the integrity of the sample and provide a faster turn-around time.

Storing the test results. Most labs offer options, from receiving reports in the mail to fax to computer-to- computer. The best choice is computer-to-computer reporting to a secure terminal in the security office. It is vital that test results be treated with absolute confidentiality. They should always be kept separately from personnel files.

When a test result comes back positive, the company has to react. If the subject is a job applicant, it is appropriate not to hire that person. But if the subject is an employee, the organization must decide what to do.

The first decision to be made is how to handle the information. The best approach is to have a medical review officer (MRO) check all test results. An MRO is a physician- -either the company doctor or a doctor under contract for this purpose--who reviews each positive test result, reviews the employee's medical files, discusses the results with the employee, and' makes a determination. The MRO is looking for flaws in the case; his or her job is to protect both the company and the employee from a mistake.

Using an MRO is a good idea for several reasons. First, the doctor's office is a neutral environment. Second, a conference with a doctor about a positive drug test is significantly less tense than a conference about such a test with one's supervisor or with the security department. Third, the doctor can offer treatment options.

All employees who test positive the first time should be offered the chance to enter a rehabilitation program suitable to their abuse problem, with the understanding that they will be re-tested at regular and random intervals to ensure that they stay clean. If they refuse treatment or if they test positive again, they should be terminated.

Employees do not kill substance abuse programs. Poorly prepared managers do. That is too bad, because most workers start out believing drug testing can make the workplace safer and support a company's right to test.

Employees are often proud of the company they work for and of their employment there. They want to know the company has the same pride in them. The goal is to develop a community of productive, problem-free workers. Upsetting people will not help a company achieve its goals. Respecting their needs will.

Carl E. King is president and chief executive officer of Selection Management, a consulting company specializing in applicant and employee screening. He is a member of the ASIS Private Security Services Council.

(Copyright © 1993 American Society for Industrial Security; 1655 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 1200; Arlington, VA 22209. Reprinted by permission from the November 1993 issue of Security Management magazine.)