Sizing Up the Effectiveness of Drug Screens
Although society did not remain blind to drug use by adults in the 1960s, the employers of that decade did not initiate the use of drug screens. One explanation for the absence of drug screens at that time can be found in the publication of the novel titled Valley of the Dolls. That novel pointed out the prevalence of drug use among many “desperate housewives.” Obviously such housewives were not then in the workforce. Had they been working at that time, drug testing would no doubt have started much sooner.During the last two decades of the 20th Century, employers often needed to pay for the performance of drug screens. Increasing numbers of workers in every sector of society had chosen to use drugs while carrying-out their job responsibilities. That choice had impacted the job performance of many members of the workforce—from the individual working at the drive-in window of a take-out restaurant to the Research Scientist investigating the causes of and treatments for a major disease.
By the middle of the 1990s, the number of employers using drug screens had shown a slight decrease. In the last half of that decade, some employers decided to concentrate less on regulation of employees, and to put more money into some type of counseling program. By the middle of the 1990s, some employers had begun to question the effectiveness of drug screens.
Sometimes drug screens yield false positive results. That can produce friction between a willingly compliant employee and a concerned employer. A drug screen can produce a false positive result if an employee has recently eaten a bakery good that had poppy seeds on the top crust. Such a result would leave the impression that the tested employee had used opiates.
Sometimes employers see clearly that they have good reason to question the results from scheduled drug screens. That is especially true when a drug screen looks for evidence of inhaled drugs. In some workplace environments an employee occasionally walks into a room filled with chemical vapors. The inhalation of those vapors might yield a positive result during a drug screen.
Despite the problems associated with drug screens, not all employers have ruled out the need for such testing procedures. In work environments where employers must handle heavy and large pieces of equipment, post accident drug screens appear to be a necessity. That fact has been substantiated by the general work habits of young and temporary employees.
Employers who rely heavily on temporary or part-time employees might derive real benefits from drug screens. Studies have shown that unemployed, young adults tend to use cocaine and marijuana with a greater frequency than their working peers. The different behaviors shown by the two groups stood out most sharply in cases where the working employees had full time and permanent jobs.
Such information on drug use among temporary employees seems to color the thinking of company employers. Some large companies, such as Amgen, refuse to allow their temporary employees to attend any sort of meeting. They seem to think that such employees can not be trusted with the information that they would have a chance to hear.
When employers emphasize compliance over innovation, then they establish an unfortunate precedent. Those employers focus public attention on the need for a safe and sure way to clamp down on drug use by all employees.
By the middle of the 1990s, the number of employers using drug screens had shown a slight decrease. In the last half of that decade, some employers decided to concentrate less on regulation of employees, and to put more money into some type of counseling program. By the middle of the 1990s, some employers had begun to question the effectiveness of drug screens.
Sometimes drug screens yield false positive results. That can produce friction between a willingly compliant employee and a concerned employer. A drug screen can produce a false positive result if an employee has recently eaten a bakery good that had poppy seeds on the top crust. Such a result would leave the impression that the tested employee had used opiates.
Sometimes employers see clearly that they have good reason to question the results from scheduled drug screens. That is especially true when a drug screen looks for evidence of inhaled drugs. In some workplace environments an employee occasionally walks into a room filled with chemical vapors. The inhalation of those vapors might yield a positive result during a drug screen.
Despite the problems associated with drug screens, not all employers have ruled out the need for such testing procedures. In work environments where employers must handle heavy and large pieces of equipment, post accident drug screens appear to be a necessity. That fact has been substantiated by the general work habits of young and temporary employees.
Employers who rely heavily on temporary or part-time employees might derive real benefits from drug screens. Studies have shown that unemployed, young adults tend to use cocaine and marijuana with a greater frequency than their working peers. The different behaviors shown by the two groups stood out most sharply in cases where the working employees had full time and permanent jobs.
Such information on drug use among temporary employees seems to color the thinking of company employers. Some large companies, such as Amgen, refuse to allow their temporary employees to attend any sort of meeting. They seem to think that such employees can not be trusted with the information that they would have a chance to hear.
When employers emphasize compliance over innovation, then they establish an unfortunate precedent. Those employers focus public attention on the need for a safe and sure way to clamp down on drug use by all employees.
Categories
:
Drug Screens
0 comments :
Post a Comment