The Effectiveness of Drug Testing in the Workplace
Sarah Sadek
East Carolina University
Abstract
Workplace drug testing programs are often met with extreme criticism. Relieving the workplace of drug use through testing is often challenged since there is little evidence on the relationship of drug use and workplace outcomes, such as performance, attendance, and safety. Many believe that drug testing may act as a deterrent, since employees are being tested randomly they are most likely to deter their use. They also have the ability to save companies money by improving employee turnover rates and reducing the costs related to recruiting candidates. Companies often struggle to develop successful programs to deal with the effects of illicit substance use by their employees. The results of these possibilities are controversial, and it is left to companies to determine if it is worth it to establish a program. To consider an appropriate solution that is beneficial to employers, identifying and evaluating all possible arguments is critical.
In 2016, United States employees were required to take a drug test about nine million times (Pinsker, 2015). Because of this, an increasing number of companies are testing current employees and potential employees for drug use. Concerned over the prospect of drug-related accidents and loss of productivity, many employers have treated drug testing as a necessary safeguard; others argue that it is expensive and ineffective. Drug testing in the workplace has sparked a debate that questions the effectiveness of testing by disputing the deterrence of drug use, impact on performance, attendance, and safety, and the improvement of employee turnover.
Workplace drug testing is intended to be an effective deterrent to drug use. Companies who drug test their employees believe that it is a strong deterrent since they are conducted on an unannounced basis. Random drug tests are essentially a surprise and, because of this, employees are less likely to use illicit substances to avoid termination. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration found that illicit drug users were less likely to work for employers that conducted pre- or post-employment drug tests. So not only does drug testing deter current employees of drug use, it also reduces the chance that a drug user will be hired in the future (Poole, 2014). Drug testing is considered the most effective deterrent of employee drug use because the fear of being caught is the most effective deterrent.
The use of drug testing as a deterrent remains controversial since there is little evidence that drug tests discourage drug use. In fact, a stronger deterrent may be that drug users choose not to work for companies that test their employees pre-or post-employment (Pinsker, 2015). Employees can also involve in illicit drug use right after their drug test, or when they are sure they will not be tested soon. Lewis Maltby, the president of the National Workrights Institute, told The Washington Post, “Employers know that it doesn’t mean anything. Anyone who smokes pot will just stop for a few days. It’s an empty ritual that nobody wants to be the first to give up” (Pinsker, 2015). Although drug tests may be random, employees still find alternatives to discouraging use.
Workplace drug testing has an impact on performance, attendance, and safety according to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Individuals who use drugs more often than not do not fully focus on their work and find decision-making difficult (Zeidner, 2017). The result is undesirable performance due to poor focus and reflexes. On the other hand, an employee who is not using illicit substances is able to make sound judgements to be beneficial to their employer.
When drug tests are implemented, another factor at the workplace that can be studied over time is attendance. It has been proven that employees who use drugs report higher absenteeism rates (U.S. Drug Test Centers). When an employee is consistently absent from work, productivity is slowed down.
The use of illicit substances may cause clouded judgement and slow reflexes (Zeidner, 2017). This is not only dangerous to the employee using, but other employees as well. Accidents can happen if the employee is not thinking clearly about what they are doing. Impaired movements can lead to unnecessary accidents and damage to property and at times even loss of life (U.S. Drug Test Centers). Employers know that drug use creates problems in the workplace that affect performance, attendance, and safety and they believe that testing their employees, pre- and post-employment, can lead to growth in their company.
Although many companies believe that drug tests are effective tools for improving safety and performance, there is little evidence pertaining to their success. Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute argues, “drug testing is sold with the promise of increasing productivity and improving safety, and it doesn’t do either one." People are at greater risk of getting into accidents while they’re on drugs, but the fact of having used the drug in recent days or weeks has not been shown to carry independent risk. Researchers have tried to link drug screening to reductions in workplace accident, and some do find positive effects. But a review of twenty-three studies, published last year in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention, found that “the evidence base for the effectiveness of testing in improving workplace safety is at best tenuous” (Pidd, 2014). This is could be because most employees who choose to use illegal drugs do so when they are not at work and, instead, use them during their days off to relieve stress or physical pain. Therefore, studies have very little success finding a relation between drug testing and their influence on performance, attendance, and safety in the workplace.
Drug testing is a good way for companies to save money by improving employee turnover rates. On average, it costs a business about seven thousand dollars to replace a salaried employee (Rosen, 2011). Employee turnover and recruitment costs can be increased by workers with substance abuse. A study conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration says that a drug-abusing employee could change jobs as often as three times in one year. A drug testing program, however, can impact employee turnover in a good way. A survey administered by the Society for Human Resource Management and the Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association revealed that sixteen percent of organizations reported turnover lower turnover rates after drug testing programs initiated. If employees are drug-free, they are less likely to change jobs which results in lower costs for companies since they are not forced to recruit. In the United States, seventy-seven percent of all illicit drug users are employed; therefore, the cost of drug testing is arguably an investment in employee turnover (Poole, 2014).
Drug tests are expensive, and the costs saved from employee turnover may not be worth it. One can argue that an illicit drug user can cost the company many financial implications. However, the likelihood of detecting a user through testing is very small. Last year, less than four percent of drug tests conducted on employees or job applicants came back positive (Weber, 2017). Spending insubstantial amounts of money to identify a very small portion of the working population. “For some employers the cost to find a single drug user can be high,” Michael Frone, the author of Alcohol and Illicit Drug Use in the Workforce and Workplace argues. Identifying those workers may be misguided considering that “a positive test result cannot determine use or impairment at work and that there’s a general lack of evidence that drug testing has an impact on performance or safety,” according to Frone. Drug testing is expensive when determining the losses companies suffer after trying to outweigh employee turnover expenses (Pinsker, 2015).
Drug testing in the workplace will continue to be highly controversial. Illicit substance use has been identified as a potential concern by many employers in regards to performance, attendance, and safety in the workplace. Improvement in employee turnover rates and discouragement of drug use overall may also result from drug testing programs. These aspects have always questioned the effectiveness of drug testing. Do companies really benefit from drug testing their employees or has it become an empty procedure that hasn’t been proved otherwise? Regardless, employers are obligated to provide a safe workplace, and impaired employees could negatively impact this goal. This complicated issue may be narrowed down to a few different viewpoints and, like many debates, there may never be an agreement among society.
References
"Drug Testing: Is drug testing an effective way to prevent drug use by employees and students?" Issues & Controversies, 13 Apr. 2007, http://icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?ID=1720. Accessed 7 Nov. 2017.
“How Drug Testing Can Improve Workplace & Employee Productivity.” US Drug Test Centers, 2 Mar. 2017, www.usdrugtestcenters.com/drug-test-blog/151/how-drug-testing-can- improve-your-workplace-and-employee-productivity.html.
Pidd, Roche K. “How Effective Is Drug Testing as a Workplace Safety Strategy? A Systematic Review of the Evidence.” Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), 10 March 2014, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK247079/.
Pinsker, Joe. “Drug Testing Is Basically Pointless .” Business Insider, 6 June 2015, www.businessinsider.com/drug-testing-is-basically-pointless–here-are-3-reasons-why-companies-still-do-it-2015-6.
Pinsker, Joe. “The Pointlessness of the Workplace Drug Test.” The Atlantic, 4 June 2015, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/drug-testing-effectiveness/394850/.
Poole, Edward W. “Cost of Drug Testing Workplace Employees.” OHS Health and Safety Services, 27 Mar. 2014, www.ohsinc.com/info/cost-of-drug-testing/.
Rosen, Les. “Studies Show Drugs in Workplace Cost Employers Billions and Small Businesses Employ More Drug Users but Drug Test Less.” ESR News Blog, 12 Aug. 2011, www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/2011/08/12/studies-show-drugs-in-workplace-cost-employers-billions-and-small-businesses-employ-more-drug-users-but-drug-test-less/.
Weber, Lauren. “More American Workers Are Testing Positive for Drugs.” The Wall Street Journal, 16 May 2017, www.wsj.com/articles/more-american-workers-are-testing- positive-for-drugs-14942898.
Zeidner, Rita. “Putting Drug Screening to the Test.” Society For Human Resource Management, 19 May 2017, www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/pages/1110zeidner.aspx.