Alcohol and Drug Testing Policy - Evidence of effectiveness?

J

Jim Howe

#11
CarolX said:
Ditto here with a former employer. Pre-employment and "just cause" were the only parameters for testing.
Yes Carol, we also have pre-employment and "testing if you are injured" on the job. Our new program does not do away with this but adds to it.
When I first decided to post this thread I considered a poll but did not know how to set it up (ignorance is bliss,you know).
The instructor indicated in the powerpoint presentation and in the video that the two most common places for drug abuse, in the state of Ohio, was schools and workplaces. Don't know if thats true or not.
I have mixed emotions :confused: with some of the assumptions postulated by the instructor regarding the benefits of Alcohol and Drug Testing Programs such as reduced overtime, less rework etc., which is why I posted the questions. They didn't offer statistical data to back up their claim. it was more anecdotal statements like 66% of the workforce either drinks or does drugs.
Thanks for your input
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

SteelMaiden

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
#12
Our no-drug policy requires everybody to be tested prior to employment, for cause (usually involvement in some sort of accident or incident) and weekly random drug tests. We even require contractors on-site to follow the policy. We do hair samples for initial and random tests, urinalysis for for-cause tests and breathalyzer for alcohol.

Is it effective? For the most part, yes. We have been doing these tests for a number of years and I truthfully believe that drug use has been reduced dramatically. Do we catch them all? Probably not. But, one thing for sure, we have no problem denying a job to anybody that tests positive on their employment test. Everyone in the area knows that if they do drugs they won't get hired, word has spread from those who didn't get hired. We have seen contractor employees pack up their stuff and leave upon hearing that their shop got pulled for testing.

I know that I feel a lot safer working now than I did say 17 years ago before we started the random tests. One crack-head using a crane is a death sentence for someone. Our safety performance at our plant is something like 80% below the national average incidents/lost times/recordables for our industry. As far as improvement in time off etc., I cannot give you any hard data, but we rarely have anyone not show up for work, unless they are really sick.
 
B

Bill Ryan - 2007

#13
We have much the same as Steel has (for about 15 years now). We are a privately owned company and, yes, the owner, as well as all management is in the pool. The one "oddity" is that if you haven't been tested in the 18 months since your last test, you are in a "special pool" to be drawn so that everyone is tested at least once in a two year period.

We also have a toxicity level for certain of the "lesser" drugs (marijuana/alchohol).

I can vouch for the decrease in drug use at work since the program was put in place. It used to be rampant here. We lose a lot of interviewees from the testing but I am happy we are only keeping people that pass the test. Our "Lost time from Injury" measure was reduced 68% from 1990 (inception of program)-1995.
 

Randy

Super Moderator
#14
Jim Howe said:
The training program indicated that marijuna can stay in the system up to 6 weeks for a chronic user and 1 week for casual use. :thanx:
Actually you can detect Cannabanoids, Opiates, many other narcotics and misused substances far longer than that with tests done on hair...the cost is not much different.

The problem I have with some of this testing is the potential for misinterpretation of the results. The casual weed toker is no more dangerous or a hazard than the person who pounds down a bunch of alcohol the night before, but there exists more leeway for alcohol than THC when it comes to actions an organization may choose to take against the person.
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration with a Mask on...
Staff member
Admin
#15
SteelMaiden said:
Is it effective? For the most part, yes. We have been doing these tests for a number of years and I truthfully believe that drug use has been reduced dramatically. Do we catch them all? Probably not.
Unfortunately, what I suspected would happen has. The conversation has switched to whether or not people are using drugs. That is not what the thread is about. I think it's a given that if a company tests for drugs they will weed out employees who do drugs. So what if there are no measureables - now you're talking a moral issue at best.

I know too many prosperous people who smoke marijuana, for example, and have for many years. Several own their own companies. Not so long ago in a group I used to play cards with there was a local judge, a couple of policemen, a dentist and a lawyer - just to cite a few professions. We all sat around 1 night a month and played cards, drank beer/whiskey (or whatever) and almost everyone smoked.

So to my point - What I have read over the last 5 years or so comes back to the same thing. A lot of people are preaching, especially drug testing companies, about drug abuse. But - The studies showing 'decreased absenteeism' or other supposed 'plus' aspects are amost always from interested parties and they are typically repudiated by other studies by neutral studies (not to mention studies by interested organizations such as NORML). Just like the DARE program. It has been shown that it's fun, but when they followed people over the years participation in the DARE program was not a factor in future success or failure, nor is there evidence that after leaving that 'environment' that those who participated used less drugs.

If drug testing does anything, it does lessen the liability of the company should something happen. For example, fork truck drivers - if there's a serious accident and that driver is found to be on drugs the company is more open to suit.

I speak to this because it has become a business within its self based upon moral issues rather than actual data where the people penalized are typically those on the lower tiers of the organization. Yes - a company may get 'lower' insurance rates but other than that? As quality professionals we talk a lot here about making decisions based upon data rather than emotion or 'theory'.

I don't want to derail the conversation other than to ask that folks not now go out and ferret out isolated studies to refute me or we'll sit here debating outside studies, but rather - In the company you work in, can you link reduced absenteeism, for example, with drug testing. If you can, cite the numbers and tell us how you got them.

I personally think 99% of this is a smoke screen where drug use has been made out to be a problem when it isn't, is based upon moral issues rather that reality and facts, and doesn't address core problems.

In my experience it has typically been obvious who was drinking or 'high' on the job without drug tests. If someone can do their job after smoking a 'joint' the night before, whose business is it and why should anyone care?

So called 'hard drugs' are a different issue, but again, it has been the rare case where someone is working 'high' where it wasn't overtly obvious.

I will say I support drug testing 'for cause'. But - Random testing is no different than if the police started stopping drivers randomly (I'm not talking about a 'check point, but I also don't agree with them) and making them prove they are not on any illegal drugs. If someone is driving erratically or breaking a traffic law stop them and see what the deal is - That is 'for cause'.

So - let's stick to the facts. I see four items on the list:

a) tardiness
b) absenteeism
c) rework cost
d) overtime

In your company, do you have hard evidence that drug testing has affected any of these four aspects?
 

SteelMaiden

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
#16
Randy said:
The problem I have with some of this testing is the potential for misinterpretation of the results. The casual weed toker is no more dangerous or a hazard than the person who pounds down a bunch of alcohol the night before, but there exists more leeway for alcohol than THC when it comes to actions an organization may choose to take against the person.
You are right Randy, but....illegal substances are illegal, you can't start saying "we will fire any employee found to be using illegal drugs or above legal alcohal levels, except for some of you who are recreational users of marijuana." Then someone will complain that they only smoke crack on the weekend (we work 4 on and 4 off so the weekend is long) so they should be exempt, and then some heroin junky will complain that if the tokers and the crackheads are exempt they should be also. I have no problem with "Zero Tolerance" as long as it is administered equally for all. The last person to be fired under the zero tolerance rule here (at least to my knowledge, and I don't know everything even though I'd like to think so lol) was a guy who came to work drunk, had been sneaking out to his vehicle for drinks during shifts, etc. His luck ran out, somebody got him for cause.
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration with a Mask on...
Staff member
Admin
#17
SteelMaiden said:
You are right Randy, but....illegal substances are illegal, you can't start saying "we will fire any employee found to be using illegal drugs or above legal alcohal levels, except for some of you who are recreational users of marijuana."
If every company would not hire anyone who ever did anything illegal, there would be very, very few workers. After all, how can you set a limit on any illegal activity using your arguement? Littering? No job.

Cast a wide enough net and you can get just about everybody.

EDIT ADD: Now that 'crack' has come up, it's the same issue. If someone wants to spend saturday night smoking 'crack' or 'snorting' cocaine, and they don't have to be at work until monday when the effects will long be past, why would anyone care? Not all people who do 'hard' drugs are 'junkies' or dangerous. This reinforces my commment above - Let's cast the widest net we can. Let us make sure if someone has a speeding ticket in their past (breaking the law, you know) they can't get a job.
 
Last edited:
C

Craig H.

#18
Marc said:
So - let's stick to the facts. I see four items on the list:

a) tardiness
b) absenteeism
c) rework cost
d) overtime

In your company, do you have hard evidence that drug testing has affected any of these four aspects?
Marc:

As far as hard evidence goes, I would have to say that it would be very difficult to attribute any increase/decrease of those factors to any one cause, albeit drug testing, an aging work force, changing demographics, etc. simply because there are many factors that can play a role. Only a full-blown study that controls for other (all would be ideal) causal factors could begin to reasonably address the issue.

As far as one of the areas, absenteeism, I do know that 100% of the folks let go are now at work 0% of the time. In some cases that may not be such a bad thing. Other cases, well...

That said, I do know personally of one case where the gentleman in question was functioning at work just fine - a really good employee, but there always seemed to be something that was not right. He failed a drug test (coke). Fortunately we have a "2 strikes and you're out" rule. He took the 3 day suspension as a wake up call, and took advantage of the available program. Off drugs for better than a year now, he seems to be the happiest I have ever seen him. Did it have an impact on the 4 issues you mentioned? I am not sure.

To me, although there are lots of reasons I do not like testing, I really do not like to see those programs with no offer of help. JMHO.
 
J

Jim Howe

#19
Randy said:
Actually you can detect Cannabanoids, Opiates, many other narcotics and misused substances far longer than that with tests done on hair...the cost is not much different.

The problem I have with some of this testing is the potential for misinterpretation of the results. The casual weed toker is no more dangerous or a hazard than the person who pounds down a bunch of alcohol the night before, but there exists more leeway for alcohol than THC when it comes to actions an organization may choose to take against the person.
I agree! :agree1: Another real problem That I have is the discussion on prescribed medicines that can trigger a positive result. Certainly, they tell us the obvious is tranquilizers (Valium, etc.) but they don't talk about any other prescribed medicine. The thing that I thought had some merit with my company's program is that they stressed testing for both Alcohol and Drugs.

But look at the football player who recently gave up millions to be able to smoke-em! I believe he had tested positive three times. Of course he must have known that after the first positive he would routinely be tested again. He said he just has to do it. Where is the misinterpretation of the test here?

My companies test program gives a second chance but you will be tested over the next twelve months as check to see if you are still clean. I am looking for stats and dollars that say the test are beneficial and to whom. I thought the responses from Bill Ryan and Steelmaiden closer to the point. My thanks to both of them. :applause:
 

SteelMaiden

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
#20
Marc said:
If every company would not hire anyone who ever did anything illegal, there would be very, very few workers. After all, how can you set a limit on any illegal activity using your arguement? Littering? No job.

Cast a wide enough net and you can get just about everybody.
Yes indeed, but, luckily our policy is for a drug free work place, not a workplace where only saints work. Believe me, Marc, I understand what you are saying, but I'll take my chances working around 3000 degree molten metal with a guy that threw a gum wrapper or pop bottle out the window or got a speeding ticket last week with a little more confidence than working with someone who just finished off a doobie or smoked a bowl. The last time I checked littering was not considered a drug. The discussion was about drug and alcohol testing programs, not whether or not companies should hire only people who have never broken the law. As you point out, there would be precious few employees to go around.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D CFR Title 14: Aeronautics and Space PART 120—DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING PROGRAM Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Standards and Requirements 3
R FAA Part 145 Repair Station Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Standards and Requirements 18
P Can Neoprene be Cleaned Using Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA) Manufacturing and Related Processes 4
J Requirements for registering Alcohol Wipes (70% IPA) in Canada Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 4
B EU: Alcohol test kits for breast milk IVDD EU Medical Device Regulations 2
B Labeling requirements of Alcohol (Isopropanol) Swabs EU Medical Device Regulations 3
D What are the requirements for selling Alcohol Swabs in USA 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 5
B Isopropyl Alcohol cleaning of Peek Optima ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
E Alcohol and Acetone Traceability Requirement Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 6
S Using 93 % alcohol for cleaning Printer Head Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
Y Handling of Potentially Biohazard Material - Alcohol Cleaning Procedure ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 12
Icy Mountain Alcohol Based Hand Sanitizers in Electronics Manufacturing Manufacturing and Related Processes 10
C Alcohol Free vs. Alcohol Based Sanitisers - Your Opinions or Experience? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 9
A Dealing with Possible Alcohol Use by Employees in the Work Place Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 23
N Is this a single integral drug device combination product EU MDR CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 1
Q Legal Manufacturer OTC Drug Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 0
D CE Marked product considered a Drug in India Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
M Workplace Drug Testing in 2020 Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 9
T Clinical trial - Medical device product not cleared (without FDA approval) in a drug trial Other US Medical Device Regulations 9
D Requirement of Pharmacovigilance (Drug Safety) Risk Based Strategic and Tactical Audit Plan General Auditing Discussions 0
V Informational EMA - Quality requirements for drug-device combinations EU Medical Device Regulations 0
M Informational Health Canada – Drug and medical device highlights 2018: Helping you maintain and improve your health Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 1
K Comparator drug with Japanese label use in Clinical trials? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
S Do we need to validate Software used in Drug discovery and development process? Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 2
O Validation approach for a Photostability Chamber (used for fluid therapy and injectable drug products) Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 1
M Informational MHRA Guidance – Recommendations from the independent Expert Advisory Group on the use of Paclitaxel Drug-Coated Balloons (DCBs) and Drug-Eluting Stent Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
K Release testing for Combination Drug-Medical Device Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 0
D FDA filing guidance to add sterilization step for approved drug Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 8
M FDA News USFDA Final Rule – Medical Device Classification Procedures: Incorporating Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act Procedures Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
S Should the primary drug containers be molded in ISO Class 7 clean room? Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 6
P Drug packaging / filling operations Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 8
P China drug packaging DMF China Medical Device Regulations 0
H Korea DMF (Drug Master File) Fees Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 5
Y What Clinical Data is required for Drug Delivery System EU Medical Device Regulations 1
P DMF (Drug Master File) type V for Sterilization Processes for USFDA Submission Other US Medical Device Regulations 3
V For a Drug-Device Combination Product, 'Design Control' Process is triggered at? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 3
A Russia- Medical device with drug registration Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
Y Shelf Life of Non-Sterile Disposable Drug Inhaler 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
V Design Controls for Combination Drug Product Manufacturer (ANDA) 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
V Upgrading Systems from CFR 211 to CFR 820 (drug+device combination) 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 7
L Registration of an Imported Medical Drug in Turkey Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 1
R Holding time stability study of intermediates of drug substances US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
S Korea - MFDS (South Korea Ministry of Food and Drug Safety) Contact? Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 4
D Risk Management for Drug-Device Combinations ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 1
J CFDA issues Guiding Opinions on Enhancing the Construction of Food and Drug Inspectio China Medical Device Regulations 1
S Can I view listed drug products on FDA website similar to listed medical devices? Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 4
E Operational Qualification of a Drug Box Coding Device in Production Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 1
B Environmental Monitoring for Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing of Bulk Drug Substances Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 1
A Comparing US/FDA Drug Regulations against US/FDA Device Regulations US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 3
R Drug Stability Data at the time of Filing US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 3

Similar threads

Top Bottom