Obama Administration Pushes Drug Testing in Workplace, But Not For Everybody

Colorado House Democratic Leader Mark Ferrandino, Rep, Dist 2, poses Friday March 23, 2012, with one of the small plastic cups he handed out to fellow lawmakers in Denver as a suggestion that if people who receive public assistance should face drug tests, so should lawmakers. Republicans who are pushing Welfare drug testing agreed to require public officials to submit to testing, too. (AP Photo/Kristen Wyatt)

WASHINGTON -- The government wants businesses to drug test their workers to boost productivity and reduce health care costs, according to the 2012 National Drug Control Report released Tuesday.

But not everyone in America should have to pee in a cup, according to a spokesman for the Obama administration agency that issued the report.

"While we believe that employers can use testing as one of a variety of tools to help guide employees suffering from substance abuse disorders into treatment –- which as we announced yesterday is not a moral failing but a treatable disease -– it is certainly not our policy that every employer in America ought to test and punish employees," Rafael Lemaitre, spokesman for the administration's Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in an email.

The comments come amid a wave of state and federal proposals that would require the poor and unemployed to prove they're not on drugs in order to receive government benefits. In many instances, Republican proponents of drug testing have argued that since most businesses require workers to drug test, the government should do the same for those seeking welfare or unemployment insurance while they search for work.

"For a vast majority of very large companies, or private and public sector jobs in general, drug testing is something that’s mandatory," state Sen. Steve Smith (R-Maricopa), sponsor of a stalled drug testing bill in Arizona, told HuffPost in March. "As far as I'm concerned, if you're on drugs, you probably won't make the best applicant or interviewee."

In February, Congress gave states leeway to drug test unemployment claimants seeking new jobs in industries that typically require applicants to pass drug tests. Republicans, using 2006 data, suggested a whopping 84 percent of employers typically required drug tests from new hires. According to the most recent information from the Society for Human Resource Management, 57 percent of businesses required all job candidates to pass drug tests in 2011. Another 10 percent tested only certain candidates.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) said he thought only a "small percentage" of workers would be affected by the new drug testing law. (The U.S. Labor Department has not offered guidance to states on the matter.) Democrats resisted a much broader GOP drug testing proposal, accepting the more limited version as part of a deal that reauthorized an expiring payroll tax cut and federal unemployment insurance.

"Democrats definitely fought against the drug testing of unemployment applicants, arguing it was punitive and costly, so for the White House to come out in favor of testing every American who works seems a little hypocritical," said Bill Piper, a lobbyist for the Drug Policy Alliance, a group that advocates for drug law reform.

"Drug testing has nothing to do with what goes on in the workplace. Drug testing is all about finding out what people did in their time off, and they're only detecting past marijuana use," said Piper, who noted that marijuana stays in a person's system longer than other drugs.

The administration doesn't think everybody should be tested, but the report says workplaces can be better off through testing and other measures.

"The consequences of illicit drug use in America’s workforce include job-related accidents and injuries, absenteeism, health care costs, and lost productivity," the administration's drug control report says. "Workplace programs that provide clear policies regarding drug use; offer prevention and education opportunities for employers and supervisors; conduct drug testing to detect and deter use; and support referral and treatment for those who have substance use disorders can play a large role in reducing the demand for drugs throughout our Nation and in helping drug users get into treatment."

A 2002 feature story in Reason, a libertarian magazine, traced the roots of private-sector workplace drug testing to the government's War on Drugs, starting with the Reagan administration's push for drug-free federal workplaces in 1986. Private employers with big government contracts followed suit. "If it weren't for the war on drugs, it seems likely that employers would treat marijuana and other currently illegal intoxicants the way they treat alcohol, which they view as a problem only when it interferes with work," Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote.

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported Reason magazine is published by the Cato Institute. It's published by the Reason Foundation.

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[Philippa McBeth]

09:53 PM on 02/03/2013

It is also important to note that drugs effect people differently some people because of other reason become more impaired by the same amount of drugs. Drug tests only measures how much drugs is in someone’s system but a drug test cannot measure how impaired someone’s performance is. For most illegal substances drugs can be detected between 1 and 4 days after use but the likely hood of someone still being impaired 4 days after they took an illegal substance is unlikely.

In conclusion I don’t believe that broad-based drug testing in the work place is ethical and would breach the privacy of the company’s employees.

[Red Niw Luk]

12:31 AM on 02/05/2013

I think that drug testing in the workplace is a good idea. I disagree drug testing every employee would breach privacy rights.

Everyone has the right to privacy but drug testing every employee would not breach privacy rights. If an employment agreement gives an employer the right to require employees to undergo drug testing it does not breach the privacy right provided the provision in the agreement is reasonable and does not breach the employee’s privacy right.

I disagree “what people do in their personal time is their own personal business” What people do in their personal time does affect the business they work in. if people are on drugs at their personal time it may harm the business reputation. For example if you are working in a big well recognised company and you take drugs in your personal time and damage someone or someone’s property, It will harm and damage the company’s reputation as much as yours.

Some strong drugs stays in the body system more than days and if people do take takes on their personal time if will affect on their work performance’s and company’s productivity will decrease. So Drug used in the personal time affects job performance, workplace safety, and many other work-related activities. People might stop using drugs if they don’t like being drug tested at work so it is benefit to individual person as well.

[Red Niw Luk]

12:34 AM on 02/05/2013

The employee might bully others and influence their credibility to do the task to management. So the drug testing can save the person and other from harm. Drug testing in the workplace will decrease accidents and will increase productivity. So I disagree that drug testing at workplace is unethical. I think all employees should be tested for drug use including managers and owners who are in any way responsible for the care of others.

[Philippa McBeth]

04:39 PM on 02/05/2013

b. I disagree with the criticism I received.

Most occasional users of drugs are of not of harm to the company’s reputation especially if the person is taking the drugs in the privacy of their own home they are unlikely to damage someone else or someone else’s property.

I agree that some drugs stay in your system for more than days however just because the drugs are still in your system it does not mean that are still affecting your performance. The effect of the drug would have worn off and you would be back to your usual performance. It also needs to be considered that some drugs would increase your performance at work so would it be ok to use those.

I believe that drug testing in the workplace has its place but only when an employer suspects it’s employee is on drugs at work, is causing harm to themselves or other or for safety reasons but I don’t believe that it is ethical for an employer to drug test all employees.

[Philippa McBeth]

09:53 PM on 02/03/2013

It is also important to note that if drug testing is enforced it must not be discriminatory to a certain group of people whether that is determined by their age, if they have a different look to others ect.

Another important point to make is that some people would say that using any illegal drug counts as drug abuse because it is illegal however this is breaking the law rather than abusing drugs. Also the purpose of drug testing in the work place is not because drugs are illegal but because of concerns of safety and loss of productivity. There is a big difference between someone being an occasional user and someone that has a drug abuse problem. The occasional user is likely to be able to perform their job as well as a non-drug user however the employee that has a drug abuse problem is probably going to be unable to do their job to a satisfactory level and would likely come to work impaired by drugs. I believe that the only right way to deal with this is drug testing only the people that you suspect are impaired by drugs at work not every employee. People can abuse substances but it may not affect their work or cause any disruption to others in the workplace.

[Philippa McBeth]

09:52 PM on 02/03/2013

a. Hi everyone, my reply for this article is for a Business Ethics assignment which is the reason for the length as that is what is required.
I disagree that every employee should be drug tested. Everyone has the right to privacy and drug testing every employee would breach privacy rights. What people do in their personal time is their own personal business and that unless they are on drugs at work or their performance is impaired because of their drug use then employers shouldn’t be concerned about what their employees are doing outside of business hours. I don’t believe that employees should be measured by activities that occur outside of work and are private. Work place drug testing is intrusive to the employee’s personal life. I can understand the need for this in terms of job-related accidents, injuries and lost productivity however just because someone is using drugs in their personal life it does not mean that they are not doing their job adequately. People have the freedom to do whatever they want in their personal life as long as it does not impair their ability to do their job or if it makes them less productive. I believe that if you have reason to suspect that someone is impaired by drugs at work then it is fine to randomly make that person have a drug test as it would impair their ability to do their job on that day and there could be safety concerns.

[keyzer]

07:42 PM on 02/03/2013

Numerous research studies criticize drug testing. Some examples are case study by L Jardine-Tweedie, PC Wright, (1998) 'Workplace drug testing: avoiding the testing addiction', quote: ‘We conclude that drug testing tends to destroy the employee-employer relationship, recommending strongly not to engage in the practice. Finally, alternatives to drug testing are outlined, culminating in a call to place greater emphasis on performance testing.’, also RG Kesselring, JR Pittman (2002), Journal of Labor Research, quote: ‘Employer use of employee drug screening procedures is widespread in the U.S. A state-by-state analysis of statutory law applicable to the drug testing issue is combined with state and industry data to isolate how drug testing laws affect workplace injury rates. Based on our data, injury rates are not statistically related to the state’s legal environment.’, and J DesJardins, R Duska (1987) ‘Drug Testing in Employment’ conclude that 'drug testing of employees is rarely justified, and mostly inefficacious'.
Drug testing is highly intrusive and should be considered only when there is a clear potential for harm. Employees’ records should be consulted, as drug testing of workers with good track record is not sensible, and employees should be informed about the test as that could prevent drug use by itself – the knowledge of impending test is often a deterrent.
Employers should concentrate on better ways to performance and safety control: wellness programmes, supervisor training, easily applied tests like dexterity, balance, reflex, reasoning ability, whichever are best suited for the job.

[keyzer]

07:14 PM on 02/03/2013

If employers cannot assess impairment by consulting drug test, the use of test should not be justifiable enough to breach privacy rights.

The current default way to test, urine sample testing is just not reliable, and it shouldn’t be used as a tool for judging productivity and assessing potential for harm. Marijuana, which is relatively harmless can be traced the longest time, while heroin, coke/crack or meth traces don't show in urine tests a few days after use. So, the chances are the marijuana users are going to be punished, and people who use arguably more dangerous and addictive drugs with bigger potential to impairment will pass the test. What is happening now, in a workplaces with regular testing, marijuana users are switching to hard drugs that are not traceable, for the sake of keeping the job. One could argue that drug testing is creating more potential for harm in the workplace than it was before the tests. That on top of being costly and interfering with people’s liberties.

Canadian Human Rights Commission recognised the problem with drug testing and privacy; the commission considers the testing ‘generally not acceptable’, and some practices, like random drug testing and pre-employment drug testing are prohibited. Despite this, Canada has less workplace fatalities related to accidents than US, according to data collected by the Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada 1993-2005.

[keyzer]

07:10 PM on 02/03/2013

Here is the essay I wrote, hope it’s alight to post it here, might add to the discussion.

Drug testing in the workplace is an intrusion to someone's private life, and it is limiting one's freedom to manage their life, relationships or reputation. Besides use of prohibited substances, drug testing can reveal if someone is HIV positive, epileptic, diabetic, mentally ill, or pregnant, so there is a potential for abuse.

The proponents are calling productivity and safety main reasons for testing, which sounds fair at first, but after some thinking that is not so convincing after all.

If someone is doing their job adequately, why does employer need to know their private activities? The relationship is economic, and performance level should be established beforehand - if performance is unacceptable, then there is a reason for an action. Otherwise, people are made to be guilty until proven innocent, which could be counterproductive to the purpose. Who wants to work harder while receiving no respect?

Work safety sounds like a good reason to test employees, as impairment can clearly lead to work accidents and endangerment of other people. So what's wrong with testing people to stop the harm? Privacy intrusion could potentially be justified if drug testing can prevent accidents. But, unlike with alcohol, there is time lapse in testing for drugs. Positive tests show drug use in the past, but not if there is present impairment - information that is actually relevant.

[jdinthree]

12:41 PM on 12/15/2012

I think the lesson here is to binge drink, smoke crack, shoot herion, smoke PCP and use plenty of cocaine. Just dont smoke marijuana because that is the only drug that will stay in your system for weeks, even months. The others will be undetectable from a huron test within days. Pretty wacky policy, right?

[michaelajackson67]

12:12 AM on 10/29/2012

I think that drug testing in the workplace is a good idea. Reason being, I suspected that one of my employees was abusing drugs, so I decided to randomly test them. I searched online and found a great place in http://drugtestsinbulk.com . The product was great, and I am sad to say that he did fail the drug test, but it did help us help him. Early detection is never a bad thing in my opinion. Tip of the day: implement drug testing in the workplace if you haven't already.

[jdinthree]

12:37 PM on 12/15/2012

It's called "reasonable suspicion" drug testing, and it is reasonable. Wha ti sunreasonable is testing someone for something they may have donw 45 days earlier on their own free personal time.

[Carrie Montgomery]

06:19 PM on 08/29/2012

The government needs to keep their noses out of peoples lives we have a constitution to protect our rights from things like this and WE THE PEOPLE hired them to protect our freedoms not take them away. This is making this country a ticking time bomb and one day it will come back to bite them!!! GOD gave us all seed bearing plants and said it was GOOD stop putting people in prison and wreaking lives and putting the expense on tax payers back!! We have to much EVIL in our government and it shows!!!!!!

[Tre Dunx]

10:35 PM on 07/30/2012

Drug Testing is not only a violation of privacy (Which is against the law...err...supposed to be), but morally wrong as far as, "Equal opportunity Employers". So technically, EVERY job that says they're an, "Equal opportunity employer" and then DRUG TESTS, are hypocritical.
This is a violation of the law, because privacy is implied in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment.
Which AMERICA has tend to over-look CONSTANTLY.

[natalietaylor]

10:11 PM on 05/26/2012

Hi all,

As you can probably tell, my posts are for an assignment, hence all the references that I had to insert. I hope you enjoy reading my comments :) Sorry there are so many but I had to get it all on!

Thanks, Natalie

[natalietaylor]

10:10 PM on 05/26/2012

It is unfair to test someone because they hang out with a certain group of people or look different to others.
Drug testing in the workplace is a highly controversial issue, and one that is becoming more widely focused on as society changes and new drugs come onto the illegal market. An employee’s personal life is of no concern to an employer, unless it begins to affect their work. If drug testing is enforced, it must not be discriminatory.

References
DesJardins, J., & Duska,R. (2001). Drug testing in employment. In T.L Beauchamp & N.E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (6th ed., pp. 283-294). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
EmployeeIssues.com. Drug testing in the workplace. Retrieved May 24, 2012 from http://employeeissues.com/drug_testing.htm

Keim, Brandon (December 10, 2008). Brain-enhancing drugs: legalize ‘em, scientists say. Retrieved May 24, 2012 from http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/brain-enhancing/

Neen147 (January 22, 2012). Drug testing and privacy. Retrieved May 23,2012 from http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/your-say/195997/drug-testing-and-privacy

[natalietaylor]

10:10 PM on 05/26/2012

Neen147 (2012) states that “an employee has a rudimentary right to privacy outside the workplace” and defines privacy as “an individual right to decide how much other people know about us”. As long as the employee is not partaking of drugs at the workplace, isn’t it private what they do outside of work hours? Are employers also going to look into how many alcoholic drinks employees have on a Friday night after work? At the end of the day, work is work, and a person’s private life is private. As long as drug use is not affecting the workplace, it shouldn’t matter to an employer.
Introducing drug testing in the workplace is also discrimination if only ‘certain’ employees are tested, as the article suggests. What criteria are employers to use when deciding who to drug test? Will they test people based on their looks? So if I come to work wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and with my hair in dreadlocks am I going to be tested for drugs because I have the stereotypical look of a drug abuser? Not being an expert in the legal field myself I cannot comment on the legal ramifications of discriminatory drug testing in the workplace, but I would imagine that the criteria for drug testing must be fair and not biased towards a certain type of people. If mandatory drug testing is brought into a workplace, employers must test on a completely random basis or test everyone.

[natalietaylor]

10:09 PM on 05/26/2012

It only becomes an issue for an employer if it affects the workplace, which it often doesn’t. The way that drugs are perceived in society is pushing employers into specifically testing for drug abuse, when really they should probably be testing for alcohol abuse as well. Brandon Keim (2008) reports on a paper written by prominent ethicists and neuroscientists, suggesting that some illegal drugs actually increase productivity and should be made legal. His article outlines how Ritalin and Adderall are being used as “academic pick-me-ups”, although are illegal unless prescribed. If productivity increases are one of the main concerns of employers and government, as this article outlines, then why should some employees be punished for taking drugs that are thought by many to actually improve productivity?
In the article, Bill Piper states that drug testing “...has nothing to do with what goes on in the workplace. Drug testing is all about finding out what people did in their time off...”. I believe that drug testing in the workplace is an invasion of an employee’s privacy. EmployeeIssues.com states that “Many legal professionals consider it to be a personal privacy invasion and an unreasonable search and seizure, contrary to our rights granted by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”

[natalietaylor]

10:07 PM on 05/26/2012

This article outlines how the US government want drug testing to be put in place to boost productivity. DesJardins and Duska (2001) put forth the argument that drug use leads to lower productivity and that drug use found through drug testing by employers will allow an increase in productivity to occur (p. 285). However, how does the employer decide what is an acceptable level of productivity for an employee? Each employee performs at a different level, so one employee may have a higher productivity level than another due to his or her individual personality traits. Does an employee performing at a lower level of productivity automatically mean that this person is thought to be abusing drugs and warrant a drug test? Surely the thing to do in this case is to give the employee a warning that their performance is below-average and to give them a timeframe for improvement? Jacob Sullum, as quoted in the article, believes that if not for the American government’s ‘War on Drugs’, American employers would only worry about an employee taking drugs if it impacted on their work, like they would with alcohol, or smoking cigarettes. Sullum’s hypothetical outcome is how I believe drug testing should be treated in the workplace. Employers don’t test us for alcohol consumption, yet a majority of employees at my own workplace enjoy the odd glass of wine or beer in the comfort of their own home.

[Naomi N Nemes]

08:37 PM on 08/16/2012

Don't forget that all unbiased studies show that workplace drug testing confers no benefit on any employer, being ineffective, inaccurate, and having a negative effect on both productivity and moral, while all the studies that show how great it is are funded and/or conducted by the drug testing industry and other such dishonest Drug War Profiteers. Meaning those latter studies have all the validity of the tobacco industry's studies showing that cigarettes are perfectly harmless.

Also, many people will say "alcohol isn't illegal so neener neener". Problem is that drug testing was forced upon us by skewed data, public ignorance and misconception, and a moral panic, and the justification from day one was "safety", not to monitor private individuals for potential illegal activity. If your reasoning that alcohol and prescription drug use don't count because they are legal and that drug testing is okay because drugs are illegal, then you are saying that corporations have the right to invade the privacy of individual citizens to conduct criminal investigations--something even the cops need probable cause and/or a warrant to do. And BTW, since corporations have erroneously been labeled as "people", no different from any private individual, then drug testing should be made illegal, because I sure as hell am not allowed to invade my neighbor's privacy under any circumstances, and if I call the cops I'd better have some damn good reason to believe there's a reason--because abuse of 911 and other such services is also illegal.