ReconsiDer Tidbits

 

The Dallas Morning News

Drug testing losing favor with employers

Screening not working as hoped in 1980s

01/29/2001   page 1D

By Charlene Oldham / The Dallas Morning News

Those who want a job in America with Plano-based Electronic Data
Systems Inc. must hand over a hair sample for drug testing - in
addition to a well-crafted resume and solid references.

Across the Canadian border, however, hair samples aren't required at
EDS locations.

"Because of cultural differences, it's not as accepted there, and we
would no longer be considered a preferred employer," said EDS
spokeswoman Leslie Hueholt. "It would apparently impact our ability
to recruit in Europe and Canada."

Drug testing may also be losing popularity in the United States.
Thanks to historically low unemployment rates, large numbers of
job-seekers are refusing the tests as an invasion of privacy and
turning to employers who don't require them, according to the
American Management Association.  At the same time, researchers are
finding that drug testing doesn't deter drug use or boost
productivity as much as it was hoped in the 1980s, when they first
were used on a large scale.

"As a result, there has been a statistically significant decline in
testing," said Eric Greenberg, director of management studies for the
New York-based management association. "It seems logical to assume
that comes, in part, because of concerns over recruitment and
retention."

Last year, an association survey found that about 66 percent of U.S.
companies required some kind of pre-employment drug screening. That's
down from a peak of 81 percent in 1996, Mr. Greenberg said.

"Today, the low unemployment rate [about 4 percent] might have human
resources managers considering the old adage, 'Don't ask questions if
you don't want to hear the answers,'" he said.

Proponents of testing argue that drug users cost U.S. businesses as
much as $100 billion in lost productivity every year. And there are
additional costs related to firing drug-using employees and rehiring
and training their replacements.

"Why hire on a problem?" said Becky Vance, executive director of Drug
Free Business Houston. "It costs a lot of money right now to fire
someone. You are going to have to pay big time in recruitment costs
and training."

But a 1998 analysis from two economics professors at Le Moyne College
in Syracuse, N.Y., found that drug testing can sometimes stymie
worker productivity. Dr. Edward Shepard, a co-author of the study,
which surveyed 63 computer equipment and software firms, speculated
that the lower productivity is the result of a distrustful office
environment created by drug testing.

"I've never really seen a study showing testing would have a positive
effect on productivity," Dr. Shepard said. "It costs a lot and
doesn't get you much, if anything."

Charles Alvison, a corporate drug-testing consultant, also said the
drop in drug tests may be due to managers of the baby boom generation
who have a different attitude about drug testing than their older
predecessors.

"Because a lot of executives grew up in the '60s and '70s, they've
been through that phase, and they understand that drug use is not
necessarily the same as drug abuse," Mr. Alvison said.

That more casual attitude is particularly prevalent at start-up
companies, where managers are hungry for both employees and extra
cash.

Ms. Vance's agency advocates a drug-free policy that includes written
guidelines, supervisor and employee training, testing and an employee
assistance program that can help employees who have a drug problem.

Such comprehensive approaches result in lower drug-positive tests
than programs that rely on testing alone, the American Management
Association has found.

That's one reason that drug testing isn't likely to disappear from
the workplace. Drug testing also has become as much a part of
corporate culture as vacation time and sick days, said Mr. Alvison,
whose Oklahoma City-based company, testclear.com, advises companies
and individuals about drug-testing policies.

"I think it's well-rooted in the culture now. One of the first things
you see when you open some employee handbooks is the drug-testing
policy," Mr. Alvison said.

Still, companies are all over the board when it comes to drug testing:

o At carriers such as Dallas-based Southwest Airlines Co. and
Houston-based Continental Airlines Inc., the Federal Aviation
Administration requires pre-employment and random testing of "safety
sensitive" employees, including pilots, flight attendants and
mechanics.  Last year, Southwest did 9,150 pre-employment screenings
and 3,028 random tests, said spokeswoman Kristin Nelson.

o Brinker International Inc., a Dallas-based restaurant company, only
tests workers who drive as part of their job, unless managers suspect
an employee is using drugs. The company has considered wider testing,
but it found the rate of return would be "minuscule" compared with
the costs, spokesman Tim Smith said.

o Some retailers, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Home Depot Inc.,
require pre-employment drug tests for prospective employees. Home
Depot applicants must take a drug test within 48 hours of a job offer
and can't start work until it comes back negative, spokeswoman Mandy
Holton said.

o Papa John's International Inc. does background checks for
prospective pizzeria managers and checks driving records of its
delivery people, but it doesn't screen for illegal drugs.

"We do not have a drug-testing policy and have never had one," said
Karen Sherman, a spokeswoman for the Kentucky-based company. "In the
quick-service food industry, the turnover is so high that you could
have someone tested, and they could be gone before you get the
results back."