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?