Workplace drug tests are part of a faulty system

Even though drug testing at work can weed out potential problems for employers, it is still a misguided and ill-principled notion.

Of course, when we talk about drug testing, there are several different kinds acknowledged by officials.

There are pre-employment, post-accident and random drug tests, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
The group identifies several reasons why employers drug test.

Namely, employers want to keep employees from taking drugs and alcohol. Employers also want to keep the workplace safe for other employees.

But these concerns and tests raise important questions.

First and foremost, what business is it of an employer what employees do during their free time? Sure, employers can argue they want clean employees, but to hold the personal choices of a worker in check for fear of a job violates personal space and assumes an employee is not competent enough to be responsible for their own well-being.

Further, if an employer sits down with an applicant, ready to hire the person, the conversation should revolve around how the applicant will be an asset to the company, not how a drug test is the final step before employment.

Ideally, the person who hires employees should know what to look for when interviewing applicants.

Meaning, after two or three interviews, it should be pretty easy, if not blatantly obvious, to tell if the person has a substance abuse problem, in which case they probably wouldn’t make it against the 50 or 100 other sober candidates.

The above two scenarios, holding personal choice in check and hiring an applicant, represent random and pre-employment screenings. That brings us to post-accident testing.

Post-accident testing is perhaps the most asinine of attempts to catch somebody on dope to fire them and not pay medical bills.

For example, the American Civil Liberties Union provides a scenario where a person goes out and smokes a joint on Saturday night, and when the person comes in Wednesday, the weekend’s THC won’t affect job performance, according to one of their briefing papers.

But a drug test might show positive for marijuana, points out the ACLU.
See the problem?

If the employee has an accident on Wednesday, clean and sober, they’ll probably test positive, which means job loss and a potentially weakened reputation.

Of course, the insurance companies backing the employer will throw high-fives all around while they wait for the next slip up.
Interestingly, a recent study entitled “Does Post-Accident Drug Testing Reduce Injuries? Evidence from a Large Retail Chain,” found accident-related claims in a retail chain fell off within more than a year of the unnamed Fortune 500 company implementing the post-accidental drug testing.

The authors of the study recognized two things. Either people stop taking drugs and alcohol, or people stop reporting accidents.

In the first case, if people quit taking drugs and alcohol, it’s their choice. It’s a shame that a drug test pushes a person to quit when quitting drugs or alcohol should come from a person’s decision for their own well-being.

But if people quit reporting accidents this creates a new problem in the workplace.

Failing to report an accident not only hurts an employee’s job performance, but also their own health.

For example, if a construction worker hurt their knee on the job, but was able to keep working and didn’t file a report, what’s to say that knee injury won’t turn into a lifelong condition?

True, that’s a hypothetical situation, but it points out that drug testing in the workplace potentially hurts employees.
Ideally, there shouldn’t be any drug testing. It should be noted this is not to encourage drugs and alcohol at the workplace, but to allow people to be responsible for themselves.

Rather, employers should start keeping a closer eye on their employees.

If an employee comes in with glazed, red eyes and doesn’t move too fast, perhaps the manager should test the employee then to see if they’re on drugs.

Instead of firing the employee on the spot, the employer should send the worker home and require them to go to a substance-abuse class.

Other than giving the employee a second chance, attending a class will motivate an employee to think more about their responsibility to their job and not to come in under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Americans are not going to stop taking drugs, and both employers and insurance companies know this.

Sure, the other side can argue drug testing keeps employees safe, but that’s not what drug testing is about.

Companies are able to save money on their insurance premiums by drug testing, which makes the practice a matter of money and not the employee’s health.

If insurance companies and businesses cared about worker’s health, they would encourage employees to take responsibility with their lives rather than to keep them in fear of losing their job.

Originally published in The Blue Banner, Fall 2009