HOW DRUG TESTING HAS CHANGED THE JOB MARKET

Fearing A Bad Result, Many Job Seekers Are Not Applying For Positions That Require Mandatory Testing. And With Jobless Rates Low, Many Firms Are Now Feeling The Crunch.

DENVER When Noel Ginsberg, president of Intertech Plastics Inc., discovered that half the candidates for jobs at his firm are eliminated because they fail or refuse to take a drug test, he was astonished.

"I never realized how widespread the drug problem was until we started drug testing," Mr. Ginsberg told a group of businesspeople at a conference here recently.

(Marijuananews note: Actually, what he apparently still does not understand is that we have a "drug testing" problem, not a drug problem. If large numbers of otherwise qualified people are refusing to take a "drug" test, then it is safe to assume that most of them are marijuana users whose job performance would not be affected by their marijuana use. But no one can say that. No one can even think it.)
See
Random Drug Testing At Work Drives Employees To Swap Cannabis For Hard Drugs -- UK Report
While the statement apparently startled many attendees, others nodded knowingly.

The rise of mandatory drug testing at businesses across the United States during the past decade has radically changed the size and makeup of many company’s applicant pools. Many job hunters, fearful of a positive result, are simply staying away from companies that test. Combine that with a tight labor market - the unemployment rate is just 2.7 percent here, for example -and clean workers are an increasingly precious commodity.

"All the reports say the drug-free worker is in high demand," says Mike Avery, who oversees the Colorado Department of Transportation’s drug-testing program.

Fewer applicants

Asked if drug testing has any effect on the number of applicants, Mr. Avery says "it absolutely does." Before his department began a federally mandated screening program in 1993, it typically received about 3,000 applicants for any given job. Today, that’s down to about 300.

Also, in the first year of the drug-free workplace program, the test-failure rate was nearly 50 percent. Since then, that rate has dropped to 2 percent, mostly because habitual drug-users have figured out that they needn’t bother applying, he says.

(Marijuananews note: Yeah, sure. The tests are relatively easy to beat, and recreational hard drug users only have to abstain for a couple of days.)

But in industries like construction and manufacturing, where drug testing is not mandatory, a 50 percent elimination rate is not surprising, Avery adds. According to statistics from the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information, 70 percent of illicit drug users are employed. That’s about 10 million Americans.
(Marijuananews note: Most marijuana users are employed, but this is seen as a "problem." Nothing better illustrates the absurdity of the prohibitionist paradigm.)

The Clearinghouse, based in Rockville, Md., also reports that the highest rates of substance abuse occur in the construction industry: 17.3 percent of construction workers abuse drugs or alcohol in the workplace. Runners-up are in the manufacturing, labor, food service, and retail industries.

A multibillion-dollar problem

Although strides are being made in prevention of substance abuse, it remains "an ongoing chronic situation" in the US, says Bruce Mendelson, director of data evaluation for the Alcohol and Drug Abuse division of the Colorado Department of Human Services. Alcohol and marijuana are far and away the most commonly abused substances by Americans.

(Marijuananews note: Of course, alcoholism is by far the largest component in this and marijuana use is the smallest, but again they are not testing for alcohol use.)

When labor is tight, however, employers are more likely to relax their hiring standards and forgo pre-employment drug tests, experts say. "With the market the way it is, they may say, ‘Why test?’ " says Daryl Grecich, spokesman for the Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace in Washington. "Drug testing tends to be low in industries where there are high turnover rates and labor shortages."

(Marijuananews note: The Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace is really just a prohibitionist propaganda organization and lobby for the testing industry.)

Yet these industries usually have the highest rates of drug use. "In certain job areas where there is a dearth of hirees, that’s where employers may not push drug-testing as much," says Richard Keil, a drug treatment specialist with the Colorado Department of Human Services.

Still, the risks of hiring without a drug test - especially in labor industries where use of machinery is involved - aren’t worth it, he says. "Nowadays, hiring without a drug program is in itself a liability risk for a company. Business is business," Mr. Keil says. "They want to have competent workers that don’t put the company or the public at risk."

Rise of drug testing

Nationwide, workplace drug-testing is more prevalent than ever. Some 43.7 percent of American workers are subject to drug tests, and 98 percent of Fortune 200 companies have some sort of drug-testing. Nearly 70 percent of workers in companies with 500 or more employees are now subject to testing, a threefold increase since 1987.

Typically, the larger the company, the more likely it is to test workers for drugs. "Many people won’t even apply for jobs at large companies because they know they’re going to be tested," he notes. "[Users] tend to go to smaller companies that don’t test."

But as more businesses rely on drug-testing programs to protect their bottom line, drug-addicted workers may place themselves out of the hiring pool. This is especially true in safety-sensitive industries, where regular testing has bee mandatory since 1993.

"In the transportation industry, someone who uses drugs is unemployable," says Avery. "If they can’t beat their addiction, they’re out."

(Marijuananews note: Oh, really? See the story immediately below.)

Copyright: 1998 The Christian Science Publishing Society.

November 22, 1998
From the Los Angeles Times
letters@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/

PORTLAND, Ore.—A 48-hour check of trucks along Oregon’s southern border showed nearly one in 10 drivers tested positive for drug use, an Oregon State Police report says. And the numbers may be higher. The trucks themselves were in even worse shape. About a fourth rumbled north despite bad brakes, bald tires and cracked wheels. Inspectors ordered 98 of the rigs off the road because of driver and equipment violations.

(Marijuananews note: Now this is something that the police should be cracking down on.)

Police stopped 373 trucks entering Oregon at Ashland and Klamath Falls in October and collected urine samples from 367 drivers, six of whom were arrested on the spot, the Oregonian reported today.

"Drug use, combined with the long and at times excessive hours driven, creates an increased propensity for commercial vehicles crashes," said state police Lt. Charles E. Hayes. "And that should concern everyone. We share the road with these people."

Violators may still be driving because state authorities do not automatically notify the trucking companies.

In addition, federal regulations generally leave it up to the drivers to tell their employers if they have been convicted or have lost their license. The test results showed 34 drivers, or 9.3%, had drugs in their system, most commonly cocaine and methamphetamines, marijuana and prescription painkillers.

(Marijuananews note: Years ago amphetamines were called "drug driver aspirin.")

Twenty-six drivers, including some who were in reserve and not at the wheel, refused to take the tests, Hayes said, suggesting that the drug use estimate may be conservative.

Ericka Ohm, of the Oregon Trucking Assns., found the arrest figures less than alarming and "kind of in line with national testing results." State police planned the operation after a large number of truck crashes during the first nine months of 1998 in southern Oregon. Seventy truck wrecks occurred in Douglas, Jackson and Josephine counties, causing 18 serious injuries and three deaths. The operation was the first to deploy safety inspectors from the Oregon Department of Transportation along with police trained to detect alcohol and drug impairment.

Word of the border stop quickly spread via CB radio, and state police set up another checkpoint in Klamath Falls to intercept drivers avoiding the Ashland stop.

Before the operation ended Oct. 8, the California Highway Patrol reported hundreds of trucks laying up in Northern California, waiting for the checks to end.

Troopers issued 45 citations and 80 warnings for equipment or driving problems. Four other drivers were so fatigued they were removed from service, Hayes said.
See
The Lancet Reports That Thousands Are Killed In Accidents Caused By Tranquilizers
Copyright: 1998 Los Angeles Times

From the NORML November 19, 1998 Press Release

Drug Testing Negatively Impacts Employee Productivity, Study Concludes

November 19, 1998, Syracuse, NY: Companies adopting drug testing programs experience significantly lower productivity than those that do not, according to a new study by the Le Moyne College Institute of Industrial Relations. The study found that pre-employment and random testing procedures result in nearly a 20 percent lower level of productivity.

"Based on standards of increased workplace productivity, drug testing flunks big time," said NORML Foundation Executive Director Allen St. Pierre.

The Le Moyne study examined 63 "high tech" firms using an economic model to estimate the effect of drug testing programs on productivity. Authors found that "drug testing programs do not succeed in improving productivity," and speculated that such procedures may create "a negative work environment, or cause substitutions of more dangerous drugs or alcohol."

The authors contend that their study is the first to examine the quantified potential productivity effects of workplace drug testing.

NORML’s St. Pierre praised the research study. "Despite it’s popularity, drug testing is a bad investment for employers," he said. He noted that The NORML Foundation opposes suspicionless drug testing, particularly urinalysis, because such procedures are intrusive searches that lack the ability to determine job impairment. The Foundation further maintains that urine testing unfairly targets marijuana smokers who may test positive for weeks after the drug’s euphoric effects have worn off.