91ÊÓƵ

If drugs or alcohol are the problem in the work place, it is getting harder to hide

by ROBERT SCHOENBERG, VBJ Staff Reporter

Increasingly, it is becoming standard procedure for employers to test prospective employees for drug use. The technology of drug testing is improving and makes testing simpler and quicker with accurate results that save time and money, prompting more employers to test.
Often people think of typical drug users as unemployed, stealing and robbing to support their habit. Some believe drug users are mainly homeless, or are uneducated, coming from the dregs of society.
However, according to Charles Martin, president of Martin Diagnostics International, “The drug problem has infiltrated all segments of society. If you look at the latest statistics, it is just not confined to just one socioeconomic class.” Martin addressed drug testing issues at a seminar last month held at the Salmon Creek Shilo Inn.
In a report issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 6.3 million full-time workers admitted to using illegal drugs in 1997. The most likely of the industries with employees who use drugs were bar and restaurant workers, as well as construction and transportation workers.
Statistics from this report indicate that the segment of the workforce with by far the greatest number of employees connected with drug use was the construction industry with 14 percent of those working testing positive during drug screening procedures in 1997.
Nevertheless, drug testing in the workplace has not become a normal procedure without its share of controversy. The American Civil Liberties Union has been fighting drug testing for a number of years based on the individual’s right to privacy.
The ACLU contends that testing is unfair, often inaccurate and unproven as a means of stopping drug abuse. They argue that because there are so few privacy laws, millions of Americans are tested yearly, even though they are not suspected of drug use.
They do concede that every employer has the right to expect workers not to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol while on the job, but argue the employer should not have the right to require employees to prove their innocence by taking a drug test.
Even with those arguments, nearly 60 million drug tests are performed annually. On-site drug testing – which includes pre-employment, random drug testing, post-accident or “for cause” testing – is increasing by almost 40 percent a year.
“Drug testing is becoming quite a big business,” Martin said. “It is driving a billion-dollar drug testing market worldwide.”
The fastest growing segment, said Martin, is known as rapid on-site testing using technologies developed over the last decade and now coming on the marketplace.
Currently, drug testing comprises a screening procedure and a follow-up confirmation test if the sample is “inconclusive.” That is, instead of calling a positive test one that has found illegal drugs in the sample, “inconclusive” indicates that the screening test revealed evidence of drugs in the sample, and the sample will have to undergo further analysis to be conclusive.
Currently, just the screening procedure can take a number of days. If the test is post-accident, then it can sometimes require that the employee involved in the accident be accompanied by a supervisor to the collection site, and then the employee who is the subject of the test is often on leave until the results are returned. Many work hours can be lost, often for nothing.
Martin said he hears repeatedly from the employers, “We get the results back and 95 percent of the time they are negative.”
The advantage of rapid on-site testing is that the results can be known in just a few minutes. The sample is taken and a plastic cartridge is inserted into the sample. The cartridge can test for up to nine drugs including cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.
In a post-accident scenario, a supervisor can know within minutes whether or not to put an employee back to work. Moreover, if the results are inconclusive, only then is the employee asked to leave work until the conformation test is done.
A confirmation test, unlike the screening test, can actually show the quantities of the drug in the sample. It is from these results that disciplinary action can be taken.
“The most accurate methods in terms of confirmation are found in the laboratory,” said Martin. “Any screening test must be confirmed with laboratory methods.”
As an example, Martin used the popular pregnancy tests offered in pharmacy stores. He said they are just screening tests and should not be relied on completely.
“You wouldn’t want to name the baby based on a screening test. You would want to wait to have it confirmed by a doctor,” he said.
A recent addition to rapid on-site testing is the alcohol screening saliva swab. Taking a saliva sample can indicate alcohol levels as low as .02 percent, the results of a single martini or a bottle of beer.
Rapid on-site testing is not yet available for general use. But, such companies as Advanced Diagnostic Services of Vancouver can perform on-site testing with results within an hour and confirmation results within the next 48 hours, screening for five drugs.
Martin listed three basic procedures employers should set for a working drug policy:
• Employers must keep in mind the screening test only indicates drugs in the sample; a confirmation test in a laboratory is necessary before any disciplinary action can take place.
• It is important to carefully document the drug testing procedure.
• The company must have a clear and concise drug policy the employees understand which states unequivocally the company’s position and the consequences for using drugs in the work place.