When Do Employees Think Drug Testing is Justified?

Drug tests are typically conducted in the workplace in one or a combination of the following circumstances: preemployment

tests, periodic tests, postaccident tests, for-cause tests, and random tests. The questionnaire asked if employees think the tests are justified in each of these circumstances. To provide a wider spectrum of opinion, in addition to data from the trainmen, the following discussion takes account of data from 92 workers from a Midwestern chemical plant who also completed the questionnaire (of 216 to whom it was distributed). In contrasting the responses, it is important to realize that the chemical workers had much less experience with drug testing. At the time of the survey, the chemical company conducted only preemployment testing, in a program that was instituted after most of the respondents were hired. Thus, only 17 percent of these workers reported ever having been tested for drugs, while the corresponding figure for trainmen, who are subject to periodic and postaccident tests, is 73 percent.

Statistical results of the questions about when drug tests are justified are reported in the Appendix, table 1. The only forms that are considered justified by the majority of trainmen and chemical workers are preemployment and for-cause testing. The largest discrepancy between the two groups pertains to random testing, which is considered justifiable by 42 percent of the chemical workers but only 16 percent of the trainmen. After my survey was completed, however, the chemical plant expanded its testing program to include random testing of current employees. While it is difficult to say with any precision how that might affect the attitudes expressed in the table, both management and union officials told me that employees were responding quite negatively to the new policy. It is perhaps significant in itself that when I suggested distributing the same questionnaire to the employees again, with the aim of ascertaining what effect the policy change had had on employee attitudes, management responded that they would prefer to wait until the situation calmed down.

The comments that 174 trainmen and 27 chemical workers added to their questionnaires are especially helpful in understanding why drug tests are approved in some circumstances but not others. A general summary of the comments will be given before we undertake a closer examination of attitudes toward drug testing in various circumstances. Fifty-seven comments ex-

pressed support for testing, all for reasons pertaining to safety. The remaining 144 comments were critical of testing. Thirty-nine respondents questioned the accuracy of tests, 38 found tests to be an opportunity for management to harass workers, 38 charged that tests invade privacy and violate constitutional rights, 28 accused testing programs of being discriminatory and demanded that management be tested too, 21 called for tests to be limited to employees who exhibit impaired performance while at work, 17 claimed that urinalysis is humiliating and weakens employee morale, 15 specifically criticized random testing, 13 claimed that alcohol abuse (for which tests are seldom given) is a more serious problem than drug abuse, 9 argued that drug tests are not an effective deterrent because they can be beaten in various ways, and smaller numbers of respondents made still other critical remarks. (These figures add up to more than the total number of commenters because some of them made two or more of the above points.)

Majority approval of both preemployment and for-cause drug testing seems to be rooted primarily in safety considerations. The railroad and chemical employees represented in this study work under conditions of potential danger. As the ones most likely to get hurt in accidents, they are no less concerned about safety than is management. One commenter wrote, "In a hazardous chemical plant I do not want to work with someone who uses drugs." A trainman explained, "We, the people in the operating department, need to be very alert at all times because we are in charge of thousands of tons of equipment and a few tenths of a second of reaction time might save someone's life, maybe their own." Another trainman summed it up bluntly, "I do not work with dopeheads and I approve of tests. . . . Stamp out drugs!!!"

Turning specifically to preemployment testing, reasons for its majority approval do not emerge from the questionnaires because very few respondents specifically addressed this issue in their comments. In a number of interviews I conducted with managers, workers, and union officials from several different industries, however, two points were made frequently. The more substantial one was that workers acknowledge a company's right to demand evidence that an employee will not pose a safety hazard because

of drug use. As will become clear in a moment, employees resent drug tests when other means—especially a long record of problem-free employment—are available for this purpose. But they do tend to accept the use of tests in the case of new hires, who have no track record with the company. The other point, more procedural in nature, was that preemployment testing is not a matter for collective bargaining in many companies because union benefits are not available to new employees until the completion of a probationary period.

So far as testing current employees is concerned, safety considerations motivate some people to embrace testing of any and all sorts. (In his questionnaire comments, for example, one trainman advocated random tests monthly or more often for all employees, including supervisors). However, the statistical data, comments on questionnaires, and interviews with workers and human resources managers all indicate that most employees think drug testing of current employees is justified only in cases where there is good reason to believe that a particular employee is under the influence of drugs, and thus poses a safety risk while at work.

Important to the majority opposition to periodic, postaccident, and random testing is that, in these circumstances, the safety issue is not clearly defined. Employees are well aware that drug tests of urine tell only that a substance has been ingested within a certain time prior to the test, varying from two or three days for cocaine or opiates to up to a month or even more for marijuana. Therefore, a worker who has never been under the influence of drugs during working hours—and who therefore is not a hazard on the job—may still have a positive test result from drugs used on weekends or vacation. The results could be destructive: disciplinary action, damage to reputation, and loss of job. Although very few admit to any drug use at all, this characteristic of drug tests violates the principle—fiercely expressed by many employees—that what they do on their own time is none of the company's business.

Postaccident testing is more closely related to safety than periodic or random testing. Although relatively little was said specifically about it in comments and interviews, they did indicate

that resentment against these tests is especially strong when the rule is applied so woodenly that those connected with an accident are tested even when the cause obviously lies elsewhere, such as equipment failure. (An example would be testing the crew of the airplane that lost part of its fuselage in flight over Hawaii a few years ago.) A union official I interviewed suggested that a policy of postaccident testing might actually backfire so far as safety is concerned. People in critical jobs such as airplane maintenance might not report an accident because they would then have to take a drug test. The reason might be not that they are on drugs but that they fear a false positive result, or want to avoid the inconvenience of the test and the embarrassment of providing a urine sample under direct observation. The net result, however, is that an accident with potentially hazardous consequences may go unreported.

The most important element of employees' opposition to postaccident, periodic, and random testing has to do with human considerations such as loyalty and trust. These were expressed especially in comments by trainmen. The railroad has done very little hiring in recent years, and all of the respondents save one have worked for the company for seven or more years—two-thirds of them, in fact, for fifteen years or more. Many of them take a great deal of pride in their long and loyal service to the railroad. They want the railroad to reciprocate with equal loyalty and pride in them. Periodic, random, and some cases of postaccident testing are done in the absence of any reason to suspect drug use. Employees resent being subjected to tests in these conditions, where their record of service counts for little beside the demeaning and dehumanizing requirement to provide their urine for chemical analysis. Wrote one,

I have worked for the railroad for over thirty years. They have never had reason to bitch about my performance. Now suddenly I'm not trusted to run my own life. Yes I am angry about their intrusion into my private life!

According to another,

I am a faithful and loyal employee. I felt like a common criminal and I didn't even do anything wrong. . . . I happen to have bashful

kidneys. The first time I took a drug test it took me almost 3 hours of water & coffee drinking before I could give a sample. . . . Also I felt as if I was being scrutinized by the nursing staff (they looked at me like I was a criminal). Needless to say I was upset, angry, humiliated, defensive, etc. I HATE DRUG TESTING!

Workers consider drug tests done without reasonable suspicion of drug abuse to be an invasion of privacy that infringes their rights as American citizens. The resentment grows when they perceive the tests to be discriminatory—required of employees in some jobs but not of other workers, supervisors, and management. One trainman commented,

Many men and women have died defending our constitution and now it's being threatened from within by people who are not required to go through this humiliating experience. My feeling can best be described by a quote from Ben Franklin: "Those of us who give up freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."

Another asserted his determination to fight back: "I, for one, will not hesitate to consult with a lawyer before and after any such test and will not hesitate to sue [the company's] butt off if any test shows positive."

Numerous trainmen reported the conviction that the railroad is trying to diminish its work force (or "skinny down," as one of them put it). This produces anxiety about jobs, and in that climate, the present policy of postaccident and periodic drug tests—plus the possibility of future random testing—contributes significantly to low employee morale. The most frequent comment from trainmen, specified by 38 of the 174 who made comments, is suspicion that the company's real interest in drug testing is as a means to harass workers and to fire them.