Government to overhaul employee drug tests - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

sixate · 01-15-2004, 01:30 PM

LINKY

Quote:

AP: Gov't to Overhaul Employee Drug Tests

By ADAM GELLER
AP Business Writer

January 14, 2004, 11:24 PM EST

NEW YORK -- The federal government is planning to overhaul its employee drug testing program to include scrutiny of workers' hair, saliva and sweat, a shift that could spur more businesses to revise screening for millions of their own workers.

The planned changes, long awaited by the testing industry, reflect government efforts to be more precise in its drug screening and to outmaneuver a small but growing subset of workers who try to cheat on urine-based tests.

Some businesses have already adopted alternative testing, despite criticism by privacy advocates. But others have held back, partly awaiting government standards.

Alternative testing methods would give employers more certainty about the timing and scope of drug usage than is now possible solely with urine sampling, said Robert Stephenson II, an official with the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

That could be particularly valuable in situations like investigations of on-the-job accidents, to determine not just whether an employee uses drugs but if usage occurred recently enough to be a cause.

Alternative testing will "really ramp up our ability to increase the deterrent value of our program, which is basically the whole bottom line," said Stephenson, director of the agency's Division of Workplace Programs.

Stephenson said it would likely be a year until the new policies take effect for the nation's 1.6 million federal workers. The agency, known as SAMHSA, sets guidelines and administers the testing.

All federal workers are eligible to be tested. SAMHSA, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, tests fewer than 200,000 workers a year. The decision about who is tested often depends on the sensitivity of their job.

But because its standards are followed by regulatory agencies who conduct testing in industries they oversee, SAMHSA is responsible for about 6.5 million of the 40 million workplace drug tests done each year by U.S. employers.

The agency's testing standards are also widely followed by thousands of other employers, public and private.

The proposed changes are due out "literally any day," Stephenson said. He would not discuss details of the proposals before their release.

Changes would not likely go into effect until early next year, after the agency solicits public comment, finalize guidelines and prepare for the transition. Once that happens, many other employers could follow suit, government and industry officials say.

"There's no doubt about it that SAMHSA's guidelines become the standard for the industry whether you're a regulated employer or not, and so what SAMHSA does will have wide-ranging impact," said Kenneth Kunsman, a marketing executive with OraSure Technologies Inc., which makes a saliva testing kit.

More employers are already using alternative testing. But many have held back because of the lack of standards, said Laura Shelton, executive director of the Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association, which represents test manufacturers and labs.

Alternative tests hold appeal because their accuracy cannot be foiled with products sold to mask drug residue in urine, say company and government officials, noting that the tests are extremely accurate.

But privacy advocates express doubts, pointing to cases of police officers and others who allege false positives because their hair absorbed drugs around them, as well as research suggesting dark hair soaks up more drug byproducts than light hair.

"There's a lot that would need to be done before these types of tests, in our minds, would be sufficient to used for workplace testing," said Jeremy Gruber, legal director for the National Workrights Institute, an employee advocacy group.

The screening industry has worked in recent years to promote alternative tests.

Casino operators and local police departments were among the first to use hair testing for pre-employment screening because it allows detection of drug use over much longer periods than urine. It is also now used by employers including Kraft Foods Inc. and brewer Anheuser-Busch Cos.

"Urine tests were fallible in a variety of ways," said Alan Feldman, a spokesman for MGM Mirage, which adopted pre-employment hair testing for all its 42,000 workers in 1993. "We want our people to be sharp."

Psychemedics Corp., the largest hair testing company, has about 2,600 corporate clients and last year did about 400,000 tests, vice president Bill Thistle said.

Saliva testing has only been marketed for workplace drug testing for a few years. Companies including paper manufacturer Georgia-Pacific Corp. have adopted it.

Kunsman said the labs affiliated with his firm this year expect to process 60,000 to 70,000 workplace drug tests a month.

Government officials and testing industry executives say the new tests are less a replacement for urine screening than as additional tools in employers' arsenal.

"In different cases, one specimen may be better than the other," said Dr. Donna Bush, drug testing team leader at SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Prevention.

Saliva testing, done using a swab that looks much like a toothbrush but with a pad instead of bristles, is best at detecting drug use within the past one or two days.

Hair testing, in which a sample about the thickness of a shoelace is clipped at the root from the back of the head, allows detection of many drugs used as far back as 3 months.

Sweat testing, in which workers are fitted with a patch that is worn for two weeks, is used to screen people who have returned to work after drug treatment.

So, does anyone think an employer should know if a new hire is a drug addict? I think so. I feel that way because I see all the drunks and drug addicts that I work with and see what lazy piles of trash they all are. I see guys steal shit from work, and I witnessed a dude who was high almost kill himself over the summer. He'll never walk right, and the company has to pay for his workers comp. There's about 10 guys I work with who have lost fingers at work, and one lost half of his foot. They are all drug addicts who get high at work. Yet these dudes will argue with me that drugs don't affect them.....

Honestly, I don't think new tests will change anything. Unfortunately, there's always ways around these stupid tests.

lordjeebus · 01-15-2004, 01:37 PM

I posted this in this thread in Tilted Living on this topic a while back:

Quote:

There's a difference between using drugs and working under the influence of those drugs. The problem with drug testing is that it does not discriminate between the two.

I think that if there is no problem in a worker's quality of work, there's no need for an employer investigate and find a "problem."

Similarly, if there is a problem in the worker's quality of work, the employer need not be concerned with whether or not drugs are involved -- they should simply demand that they get themselves together or find another job. Is there a difference between one who is incompetent because of drug use and one who is incompetent because of laziness?

Also -- most companies allow their workers to drink outside of work. But they wouldn't want their workers working drunk. As long as a worker can do their work well, I think that companies would better spend their resources elsewhere.

Aside from that, I think that drug tests are an invasion of privacy, and while it may be legal for a company to demand them, I consider it unethical.

And finally, I find drug testing odd because it is usually not comprehensive and can provide incentive for someone to shift from marijuana (usually tested for) to something harder that's not tested for. Example: When I attended a private high school, the administration announced that it would begin random drug testing for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, PCP, and methamphetamine. The result was that the 1/3 of the class that smoked marijuana moved to shrooms, ecstacy, and LSD.

I agree that employers shouldn't tolerate "lazy piles of trash," but because they are lazy, not because of their drug use.

I would rather employ someone who smokes at home and does their work well than someone who is substance-free but is still messing around at work.

bonehed1 · 01-15-2004, 01:42 PM

I actually deal with drug screening and it is quite hilarious. You couldn't imagine the excuses people come up with when they come up positive for something and you ask them about it. People will say anything to get them hired so in my opinion if they come up positive then I wouldn't hire them. I would only employee someone who has a legal reason for using a drug.

Holo · 01-15-2004, 04:24 PM

I think if you have a job in heavy machinery, or dangerous labor then drug testing should be done. If you're a sysadmin, no. I have personally known hard ass working drug users and I have known clean and sober lazy pieces of shit. These tests, in absence of any danger in the work, are an invasion of privacy and shouldn't be done. Who cares if your IT guy gets stoned after work? It'll keep him from offing himself after dealing with n00bs in tech support all day. Sports Authority already does the hair test (so I'm told) and the hair test can go back much farther in your history of use, as long as your hair is basically. If you shave your head they take an armpit hair or a pube, so unless you have alopecia or shave everything and quit smoking out 3 months ago, you're prolly screwed.

JStrider · 01-15-2004, 04:43 PM

i dont really agree with drug tests...
but then a person shouldnt be coming to work high/getting high at work... but if a person wants to smoke some weed or whatever friday night to help wind down after a week of work and relax for the weekend why not...

WhoaitsZ · 01-15-2004, 05:05 PM

i have a question. how accurate are these tests?

I mean.... if I snorted monday and took a test thursday.... would it show that it was on monday?

if yer on a work schedule i agree, drug tests are too lose as is. however, if your life does't interfere with the workplace then the workpplace should mind it's own fucking business.

01-15-2004, 01:42 PM	#3 (permalink)
bonehed1 Psycho Location: California	I actually deal with drug screening and it is quite hilarious. You couldn't imagine the excuses people come up with when they come up positive for something and you ask them about it. People will say anything to get them hired so in my opinion if they come up positive then I wouldn't hire them. I would only employee someone who has a legal reason for using a drug. __________________ Stuff is Good

01-15-2004, 04:24 PM	#4 (permalink)
Holo A Real American	I think if you have a job in heavy machinery, or dangerous labor then drug testing should be done. If you're a sysadmin, no. I have personally known hard ass working drug users and I have known clean and sober lazy pieces of shit. These tests, in absence of any danger in the work, are an invasion of privacy and shouldn't be done. Who cares if your IT guy gets stoned after work? It'll keep him from offing himself after dealing with n00bs in tech support all day. Sports Authority already does the hair test (so I'm told) and the hair test can go back much farther in your history of use, as long as your hair is basically. If you shave your head they take an armpit hair or a pube, so unless you have alopecia or shave everything and quit smoking out 3 months ago, you're prolly screwed. __________________ I happen to like the words "fuck", "cock", "pussy", "tits", "cunt", "twat", "shit" and even "bitch". As long as I am not using them to describe you, don't go telling me whether or not I can/should use them...that is, if you want me to continue refraining from using them to describe you. ~Prince

01-15-2004, 04:43 PM	#5 (permalink)
JStrider Poo-tee-weet? Location: The Woodlands, TX	i dont really agree with drug tests... but then a person shouldnt be coming to work high/getting high at work... but if a person wants to smoke some weed or whatever friday night to help wind down after a week of work and relax for the weekend why not... __________________ -=JStrider=- ~Clatto Verata Nicto

01-15-2004, 05:05 PM	#6 (permalink)
WhoaitsZ Crazy Location: right behind you...	i have a question. how accurate are these tests? I mean.... if I snorted monday and took a test thursday.... would it show that it was on monday? if yer on a work schedule i agree, drug tests are too lose as is. however, if your life does't interfere with the workplace then the workpplace should mind it's own fucking business.