Working Drug Free -- Companies Establishing Plans To Test Current, Future Workers
Drug testing has become the rule, not the exception, for many U.S. companies. And although safety is a factor, they say another big reason is money.
Present estimates on the financial drain to companies from substance abuse is $100 billion to $120 billion a year, according to the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA). Those figures account for lost time, medical and liability insurance, decreased productivity and poor quality products.
As the problems and costs of drug use in the workplace have become better understood, companies increasingly have turned to drug testing as a solution.
``It didn't take a genius to notice that people were going out to lunch and smoking pot,'' said Bill Scheidt, general manager of Puget Corp. in Tacoma. ``Then there was some drug dealing going on in the shop.''
So earlier this year, Scheidt told his 150 employees that drug testing would start in late summer at the die-casting company.
Employment now is usually subject to a pre-employment drug test - applicants must show they are drug-free before they are hired.
For Scheidt, the move is an attempt to head off accidents.
``We were afraid that without a policy more accidents were going to occur. All of our managers realized there was a problem, but it wasn't clear how we were going to handle it,'' he said.
The company's policy also calls for testing of current employees when there is a ``reasonable suspicion'' of drug use, and after a supervisor has seen some evidence of drug use. Puget will also do post-accident drug testing, but Scheidt said he has yet to use any drug testing except for new hires.
Puget is hardly alone.
In the past 10 years, employee drug testing has risen dramatically. In 1981, a survey published by Human Resource Management News, a trade publication for human resource managers, showed only 3 percent of the companies polled used drug testing. Now the Conference Board, a business information service based in New York City, estimates that more than half of the major U.S. corporations have policies that include testing.
Opposition to drug testing continues to come from groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, and in the case of at least two local companies, from labor unions.
In a recent letter to members, District Lodge 751 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) criticized a new drug policy proposed by The Boeing Co.
Boeing's machinists last month rejected the company's drug-testing plan by an 86 percent to 14 percent margin. The union wouldn't reveal how many of its 50,000 members voted on the plan.
It's unclear whether Boeing will implement its testing program for IAM members, or whether the two sides will return to negotiate a new plan. No decision has been reached, according to Boeing, and no talks are scheduled.
For Boeing's non-IAM employees and for nonunion employees, the new policy is in effect, said Boeing spokesman Russ Young.
The policy, which has been agreed to by all but the IAM and one other small union out of the 30 unions that represent Boeing employees, provides for drug testing after some on-the-job accidents and where there is ``reasonable suspicion'' that an employee is using drugs. Employees who test positive will get one chance at a rehabilitation program; the second positive test will cause employees to be fired.
Boeing is not the only local company to have its drug testing policy challenged.
In September, a federal judge issued an injunction against US West's drug-testing policy after a local labor union challenged the firing of one employee for not submitting to a drug test.
The injunction became effective in mid-October when the Communication Workers of America filed a formal grievance against the company. Lisa Bowersock, media relations manager with the company in Washington, said although the federal judge in the case must set the parameters of the injunction, US West will not test any union employee, except for those covered by the Department of Transportation rules.
Although some labor unions oppose drug testing, there is a growing segment of the work force that has come to accept, and even expect, drug testing.
A survey by the Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace, based in Washington, D.C., showed that 94 percent of workers in Washington state thought drug testing in the workplace was appropriate. Only 5 percent said it was not needed.
Although Boeing machinists have opposed Boeing's policy, Boeing's second-largest union, the Seattle Professional Engineering Employees Association, which represents 27,000 Boeing technicians and engineers, has signed a letter of intent accepting it. The association did not submit the plan to members for a vote.
``Drug testing is very much the rage,'' said Julya Hampton, legal program director for the Washington office of the ACLU.
No figures exist on how many Washington companies use drug testing, but if the number of clients one laboratory has is any indication, it is becoming more common.
The Seattle-based Laboratory of Pathology, which was certified by the National Institute of Drug Abuse last year, ran no tests on employee samples in 1985. It now tests for 600 companies and runs more than 7,000 tests a month, making employee testing the majority of its business, says Greg Randall, the lab's toxicology supervisor.
``Early on, we had businesses come in and say we want to start drug testing on Monday. Thank goodness, that's not the case anymore. In fact, we won't deal with people who don't have a formal drug-policy program,'' Randall said.
An informal survey of some of Washington's largest employers reveals a wide difference in how employers view drug testing.
Univar Corp. and its U.S. subsidiary, Van Waters & Rogers Inc., has instituted drug testing for ``reasonable cause'' for its almost 2,000 employees nationally who aren't subject to Department of Transportation-mandated testing.
The Department of Transportation has instituted drug testing provisions for such employees as airline pilots, mechanics, truck drivers and pipeline workers. In general, employees covered under the department's rules are subject to pre-employment testing, regular testing as part of routine physicals and testing for reasonable cause.
Craig Lawson, assistant director of employee relations for Univar, said his company feels a special responsibility to test employees because they frequently work with hazardous chemicals.
``At first, our inclination if an employee tested positive was to get them help and give them a second chance,'' said Lawson. ``But in talking to other companies about this, we came to believe that we couldn't take the chance. We're talking about the safety of all our employees.
``If an employee comes forward with a problem, we'll bend over backwards to help. But if an existing employee tests positive, that person is fired,'' said Lawson.
In contrast, Microsoft has no drug-testing plan. John Prumatico, director of human resources, said Microsoft has never seriously considered drug testing.
``Drug use is obviously a big problem in society,'' he said. ``But we haven't found testing to be a compelling solution - as a condition of employment or for any reason.''
The 1988 Drug-Free Workplace Act required federal contractors to develop drug-free workplace policies or risk losing federal contracts. Also in 1988, the federal departments of Transportation and Defense developed drug-testing rules for employees in safety and security-sensitive areas such as airline pilots and truck drivers.
Many businesses instituted companywide drug-testing policies as these requirements went into effect.
Wright Schuchart Co., parent to construction company Howard S. Wright Construction Co., instituted its drug-testing plan in November 1988. The company says its adoption of a drug-testing plan was not connected to federal regulations.
Joni Vaughan, employee relations manager for Wright Schuchart, said the company gives pre-employment tests to all workers on its construction projects. On-going testing isn't required because the company hires specifically for each of its jobs and doesn't retain construction workers on its payroll permanently.
In addition, the company tests its 350 full-time staff workers on a pre-employment basis and once a year in regularly scheduled tests.
Vaughan acknowledges that the annual tests, which are generally done in November, won't catch anyone by surprise.
``The tests themselves won't tell us whether we have a problem or not. But they make a statement to employees that we're serious about addressing the problem,'' said Vaughan.
The company says it has cut its accident rate by 62 percent between 1988 and today.
The success of some companies that test, along with government regulations requiring tests for some employees, helped create a bandwagon attitude among companies wanting to test. But the rush to test often led to testing that was not backed up by a formal company policy outlining what a company was trying to achieve.
``Substance abuse is a complex human problem, it is not going to go away by simple solutions or gimmicks. Unfortunately, some businesses have been sold a bill of goods that drug testing is the be-all and end-all of a drug abuse policy,'' said Cindy Zehnder, coordinator for the Joint Council of Teamsters No. 28 in Washington, who has been involved in negotiating drug-abuse policies in contracts between local unions and companies.
One problem in the early years of drug testing was the lack of control in following who worked with a sample - from the company's medical officer who took it to the several employees who may handle it at a drug-testing lab. Samples were mixed up or lost and there were few ways of finding who had made a mistake. Employees were sometimes tested without cause, and some were not hired because of positive results triggered by prescription drugs.
Today some of those problems have been solved.
``Now the emphasis is on retaining employees. Corporations have gotten over the panic that drugs are gonna eat us up and take us down the tubes. Now that we have a couple years of hindsight, we realize we have always had substance-abuse problems in the workplace and that the issue of drugs is multifaceted,'' said Henry Govert, the newly appointed drug-free workplace specialist with the state Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse.
Boeing's new policy uses a four-step process that includes testing after an accident, but it relies heavily on rehabilitation through an employee assistance program and medical help, the company says.
``There was a growing concern over drug problems and alcohol and a change in our corporate culture that saw these as medical problems,'' said Dennis O'Neill, manager of Boeing's employee assistance program.
Although Puget Corp.'s Scheidt said he had no hard data on whether accidents have been reduced, he said it's his gut feeling that there has been improvement in safety.
``Known offenders left before the policy and dealing has quit in the shop,'' Scheidt said.
``But in the first place, there was nothing monetarily that triggered our policy. It was done strictly from a safety standpoint,'' he said.
Despite such testimonials, those opposed to drug testing contend it does not truly test for impairment on the job, only that the person has used a drug sometime in the past.
Hampton of the ACLU takes the position that if drugs don't impair an employee's performance, then it is not the employer's business what workers do on off-hours.
She suggests companies use other methods, such as video simulators that test impairment, instead of tests. One such test, Factor One, developed by NASA in the 1970s, resembles a video game where a player uses a joystick to keep the cursor centered.
Gary Liming, a 30-year veteran of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, said companies usually decide they need a drug policy when they see they have a problem. But he also says many get involved because they don't want to get the castoffs from other companies.
Liming started Drug Prevention Specialists in Lynnwood after spending the past few years in his agency job helping companies with drug policies. He helped Puget Corp. set up its program.
Liming said he tries to help companies come up with policies that are consistent with their philosophy toward drugs.
``If they don't want testing, then I don't push them to have it. If they want a program that just prohibits drugs in the workplace and nothing beyond, then that's fine,'' he said.
But Liming believes that a drug policy without testing won't be effective.
``The bottom line is that impairment goes beyond that first feeling of euphoria. I tell companies not to get into measuring the effect on work. It is simply this, `You work for me and this business is a drug-free and alcohol-free place,' '' Liming said.
-- Business reporter Tim Healy contributed to this report.
----------------------------------------------
DRUG POLICIES
-------------
Here are how some of Washington's largest employers handle the issue of employee drug testing.
THE BOEING CO.
--------------
-- Boeing's drug and alcohol policy covers its 161,000 employees. About 2 percent are tested periodically under Department of Transportation regulations. The company has been negotiating with its unions on a formal drug and alcohol policy that includes drug testing, an employee assistance program, treatment and rehabilitation. All of the unions except the largest, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, have approved the plan. Members of the IAM rejected the plan in a vote in November; both sides expect to negotiate further over the matter. The company has tested new hires since 1987.
WEYERHAEUSER CO.
----------------
-- Weyerhaeuser permits its divisions to institute drug testing and rehabilitation policies as the divisions see fit. About one-third of the company's 3,300 jobs in the Puget Sound area are subject to pre-employment testing and testing ``for cause.''
PACCAR INC.
-----------
-- Paccar has conducted pre-employment drug testing for some jobs for the past 1 1/2 years; the company expects pre-employment testing for all jobs by sometime next year. Also, the company can require tests where there is ``reasonable suspicion'' of drug use. Most employees who show positive test results are referred to rehabilitation and are not fired.
----------------------------------------------
DRUG POLICIES
-- Here are more of Washington's largest employers and how they handle the issue of employee drug testing.
SAFECO CORP.
------------
-- Safeco has no drug-testing program in place. A drug and alcohol policy prohibits use of drugs and alcohol in the workplace.
NORDSTROM INC.
--------------
-- Nordstrom has no drug-testing program. The company offers referrals for employees who seek help for drug or alcohol addiction.
BURLINGTON RESOURCES INC.
-------------------------
-- Burlington has no drug-testing program. It does have an employee-assistance program that authorizes treatment for employees who seek help.
UNIVAR CORP.
------------
-- Univar tests its 400 truck drivers and 450 warehouse workers nationwide in accordance with Department of Transportation rules. The remainder of the company's 2,800 employees are subject to testing for reasonable cause. If the test results are positive, the employee is fired.
ALASKA AIRLINES INC.
--------------------
-- About 2,500 of Alaska Airlines 6,000 employees are subject to Department of Transportation-ordered drug testing. The remaining employees are subject to much the same rules. If tests results are positive, the employee is fired unless the employee approaches the company and asks for help.
MICROSOFT CORP.
---------------
-- Microsoft has no drug-testing program covering its 4,000 employees in Redmond and Bellevue. The company does have an employee assistance program to help employees who seek counseling and assistance for addictions.