(U-WIRE) University of Massachusetts-Amherst -- Trying to find a job this past summer presented a greater challenge than I anticipated. There were some issues I expected to encounter. For example, I had already figured I would not find employment that involved interesting work. I also knew that the job market was difficult and it would be hard to get an offer anywhere. What I didn't expect was to have to take a drug screening urinalysis test.
At first I attempted to avoid looking for work in places that demanded I surrender my urine for examination. However, after quick survey of the few places in my area that were even accepting applications, I discovered that the vast majority of minimum-wage jobs insisted I oblige to their bathroom fetish.
United Labs, a major drug testing corporation, offered this fact in their publication, "In Favor of a Drug-Free Workplace: Why Drug Testing?" A 1997 American Management Association study revealed that 81 percent of surveyed companies enforce a drug-free workplace through the use of mandatory drug testing of its employees and applicants. The number represents a 277 percent increase since 1987.
The startling numbers raise a question: Why? Why are employers interested in spending large amounts of money in order to uncover this private detail of the lives of their employees? Why do drug-screening companies like United Labs feel that drug screening is so important? Why are people arguing that it is necessary to expose this information to employers?
Advocates of the drug-free workplace argue three reasons that support their claims for the necessity of drug testing. They attempt to justify the concept through a need for safety, competence and reliability. However, none of the three holds strong to examination.
Drug screening labs make a strong case for safety in the workplace. In the introduction to the United Labs publication, it says: "If people use drugs at work, they won't be able to do their jobs well and they might end up killing millions of people."
The publication cites a study by the National Safety Council in which it was reported that 80 percent of those injured at work in "serious" drug-related accidents are the co-workers of those who use drugs at work. According to the council, this statistic proves that employees who use drugs on the job, or at any time that affect employee work hours, have a greater chance of hurting their co-workers.
But what about an employee who separates the recreational use of drugs from his time on the job? Is he really a danger to those whom he works with? It is my assertion that an employee who is never under the influence of drugs at work will not endanger the lives of any work-related people due to his drug involvement.
Therefore, a suitable drug test for job safety would show a positive result only if the employee is under the influence of drugs during the time of the test.
However, the current standard of drug screening does not distinguish between drugs that affect the user on the job and drug use unrelated to work. In fact, with the current test, some drugs are detectable for up to six weeks after use. The test fails to indicate safety hazards because it does not distinguish between arguably harmless drug use and drugs taken at a time when its effects could interfere with work.
Proponents of drug screening also stress the need for a competent workforce.
In advocating their policies, they argue that employees who use drugs ∆ on or off the job ∆ work less efficiently or become increasingly incompetent.
What they fail to realize is that inefficiency and incompetence are the only relevant drug-related results. The actual cause of an employee's poor performance should not be important to the employer. Instead, only the problem itself should be of concern, and only the effects that the lacking employee has on company functions should be used as a basis for disciplinary action.
Perhaps if the employee wishes to offer an acceptable reason for his lack of performance, the employer could consider information that is voluntarily submitted (and suitably verified). In such a case, a person with a medical excuse may have a valid defense, whereas a drug user would not. Here, the employee still has the opportunity to defend his job, and the employer still has the ability to rid his workforce of incompetence. The drug test would add nothing of value.
Drug-screening supporters also highlight the necessity of their tests by emphasizing the health risks of drug use. According to the United Labs publication, the results of a study show that 9 percent of drug users have missed two or more days of work in an average month due to health-related reasons. Therefore, drug users are more likely to need days off.
It is plausible for a company to weed out employees who are affected by health problems or have the need to take a medical leave. However, employers seem to have forgotten about other activities their workers may engage in which pose equal health risks. Everything from cigarette smoking to skydiving is potentially harmful, yet employers do not screen for these. Clearly the health risk associated with drug use is not the real cause for concern.
The main arguments supporting drug screening do not hold up to scrutiny. So why are more and more corporations instituting a drug-free workplace? One word: liability. America is a litigious society. The fear of potentially devastating lawsuits is causing corporate America to institute drug-free workplace policies en masse. Corporations are watching their backs, and working Americans are losing. Because of these policies, I found it challenging to find a job that did not violate my privacy. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
17 Archives
Morris Singer
