cannabisnews.com: Drug Testing: Like Health Insurance For Company





Drug Testing: Like Health Insurance For Company
Posted by FoM on September 10, 2000 at 17:00:54 PT
By Dan Zehr, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Coordinators at Lowell Medical Center's Drug Free Workplace Program say they've advised 3,918 different companies on drug policies and screening. But it's the companies they didn't talk to that they worry about. Greg Hoggart, the program's education assistant, tells a story about a worker at a small woodworking business. The worker lost a couple of fingers in a band-saw accident at work. Turns out he was high on marijuana at the time, Hoggart said. The company had no drug policy, and after a hefty compensation ruling in the employee's favor, there was no company, either.
In business, where one drug-related accident can damage or even destroy a company, legislation has made having a drug policy a nearly indispensable safeguard. And as more businesses realize the benefits of a drug-free workplace, drug screening has earned broader acceptance than in its lawsuit-ridden days of the early '90s. Some two-thirds of companies now test for illegal substances, according to a 2000 American Management Association report.  "It's like health insurance for your company," Hoggart said. "You may not want it, but it's a good thing to have."  A Dangerous Position:  It's especially good when considering the results of a recent U.S. Department of Health & Human Services survey. The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse revealed that 74 percent of illicit drug users were full-time employees. The 18-year-old to 25-year-old population segment -- the largest new-employee pool -- was the only age group that increased its drug use from 1994 to 1998.  That can leave companies that don't screen for drugs in a dangerous position, warns Michiele Shrieber, coordinator of the Lowell Medical Center's drug-free program. Especially vulnerable are small businesses, which make up only 5 percent of the companies that test for drugs.  Many employees in large corporations are required to pass screens under federal law. The U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Authority require that safety-sensitive workers --truckers and pilots, for example -- get regular tests. The mandate requires a five-panel test, which screens urine for marijuana, PCP, cocaine, opiates and amphetamines. More sensitive tests exist, but tend to be specific to different professions, such as those tests performed in professional sports.  Potential employees who abuse illicit drugs tend to stay away from large companies because of their vigilance. Word of mouth, even Web sites alert illicit drug users to companies that do prehiring drug screens. And since drug use is often a social function, Shrieber said, companies that don't screen often attract more than their share of substance abusers. According to the Health & Human Services report, 87 percent of full-time employed illicit drug users worked for companies with less than 500 employees.  Those same employees were 10 times more likely to miss work, according to an American Council for Drug Education report. They were 3.6 times more likely to be involved in an accident. And they filed five times as many workers' compensation claims. Keeping a drug-free environment can help increase productivity and cut down on claims, the study concluded.  Small Business Benefit:  Small businesses can also reap direct monetary benefits. For example, Act 1552 of the state legislature's 1999 regular session says that a company that writes a comprehensive drug policy, institutes a drug education program and tests every employee can receive at least a 5-percent cut from its workers' compensation premiums. Drug testing qualifies many companies for bonuses from insurers. And under Rule 36 of Act 1552, a company that administers post-accident screens insulates itself against drug-based liability claims.  Even so, many small businesses balk. Many temporary staffing agencies find it too expensive to test every new applicant -- there are just too many. But others who can logistically swing it often worry about the legacy of drug-testing litigation, Shrieber said. Some just never realize the benefits. But most companies worry about the cost.  "Cost is not a factor in testing," she said.  The average price of a drug test is around $35 per employee, according to Nancy Grover, editor of the Florida-based publication Workplace Substance Abuse Advisor. The Lowell Medical Center charges $30 for a drug test and $20 for an alcohol screen.  "They think when they start [screening] they need a mass test," Shrieber said. "They only need to test on hire, after an accident or when they have a reason to think an employee is abusing drugs."  For a 20-employee company that turns over four employees in a year, Hoggart explains, the financial reward alone can be significant. The savings on workers' compensation premiums could reach $700, he said. But the best benefit is protecting the company against liability.  "Four new screens would only be $150 to $160," Hoggart said.  Like the woodworking company Hoggart remembers, those claims can put a small business out of business.  "If you don't screen these days, it's like playing with a loaded gun," he said.Published: Sunday, September 10, 2000Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (AR)Copyright: 2000 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc.Contact: voices ardemgaz.com Address: 121 East Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72201Website: http://www.ardemgaz.com/Forum: http://www.ardemgaz.com/info/voices.htmlCannabisNews Drug Testing Archives:http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/drug_testing.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by dddd on February 25, 2001 at 23:59:48 PT
Thank You!
Dan Zehr...I,for one,,really appreciate your comment/explanation ofyour story.......I hate to sound corny,,,but it's special to see a writertake the time to clarify a viewpoint from the past....I hope you willcontinue to visit here.........Sincerely.....dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Dan Zehr on February 25, 2001 at 21:34:47 PT:
A little late, but a reply nonetheless
Folks:Please note, first, that this was an article for a business publication. Thus, the angle of business cost and effect as it is perceived by most LOCAL business. I must, essentially, rely on my sources for the story.My regret, then, would be not finding a strong local or other "pro" voice. Apologies for that. But please, read on.Dr. Russo states:[Drug testing is inefficent, cost ineffective, erodes our civil liberties, and should be reserved for cases for cause involving public safety.]-- It's impossible to argue whether or not testing is efficient, as it depends on the criteria set forth by a business. If a manufacturer's goal is to avoid ANY drug related accident or productivity loss, ANY effort and cost to detect a drug abuser will be by them considered efficient.As a side note here, notice I use "abuser" instead of "user". I agree with you Dr. Russo, that much of the current drug policy does erode civil liberties. This article never claimed to and never tried to address that issue. That's a fight for another time and place.Finally, I appreciate the ACLU link. It is, indeed, most helpful.For kaptinemo:[The antis are continually hassling us about facts, but when we provide them data down to chapter, line and verse, they dismiss them.] -- First, you erroneously label me "anti", but from the angle of my story I grant that assumption.[when *they* are the ones who impugned *our* intellectual honesty.]-- I'm not sure how this applies to me, exactly. At what point did I impugne *your* intellectual honesty? I have no reason whatsoever to doubt your honesty, nor that of those folks who share your beliefs.[Notice the lack of the name of the company where this suppposed marijuana-related mishap occured]-- Information from Hoggart was related on "background" -- to be confirmed with business. Unfortunately, the company owners, out of business since the incident, could not be reached. They no longer reside in Northwest Arkansas, and attempts to contact them went unacknowledged. [It is painfully obvious that this is the newspaper version of an informercial designed to literally 'scare up' business for testing, and the editors of this paper should have their feet held to the fire for such a sophomoric excuse for corporate shilling.]-- Well, I can only say that your misgivings are valid. In retrospect, I wrote an incomplete article. As a busines reporter, I wrote the business angle, which tends to be pro-testing. In so doing, I missed the counter-arguments. For that, my apologies.That said, do not commit the same error I did here: You might want to get, rather than assume, the other side.Or, in other words, we can heed Dr. Russo's admonition: "I can not believe that this kind of unchallenged propaganda continues to be disseminated."This forum will help -- both in avoiding assumption and in a fuller context for the issue.With that, I thank you for your feedback and wish you all a good day.daz
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on September 11, 2000 at 06:35:02 PT:
Drug Testing is a Bad Investment
I can not believe that this kind of unchallenged propaganda continues to be disseminated. Drug testing is inefficent, cost ineffective, erodes our civil liberties, and should be reserved for cases for cause involving public safety. The ACLU has compiled an excellent, referenced report that every employer and employee should consult:http://www.aclu.org/issues/worker/summdrugtesting1999.htmlPlease take the time to read it.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on September 11, 2000 at 05:03:59 PT:
Some facts, please
Articles like this always get me riled.The antis are continually hassling us about facts, but when we provide them data down to chapter, line and verse, they dismiss them. Yet when we demand the same kind of factual accountability from them, they dissemble. They shy off, try to make light of it, even get nasty with us for 'doubting their integrity'...when *they* are the ones who impugned *our* intellectual honesty.Articles like this one are no different from the crap produced by Harry Anslinger's 'Girl Friday' Winnifred Black. She was the one who wrote nearly all the 'Reefer Madness' dreck in the Hearst rags that Anslinger presented to Congress as factual information to justify cannabis prohibition.Notice the lack of the name of the company where this suppposed marijuana-related mishap occured: 'Greg Hoggart, the program's education assistant, tells a story about a worker at a small woodworking business.'Precisely the same kind of 'journalism' as Black provided to Anslinger, who foamed at the mouth about perpetually annonymous reefer-smoking axe murderers.It is painfully obvious that this is the newspaper version of an informercial designed to literally 'scare up' business for testing, and the editors of this paper should have their feet held to the fire for such a sophomoric excuse for corporate shilling.  
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by FoM on September 10, 2000 at 21:47:03 PT
Thanks DdC!
I sure appreciate the links! Good to see you!Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by DdC on September 10, 2000 at 21:12:19 PT
Pisstest are inaccurate and dangerous.
http://www.cannabinoid.com/wwwboard/politics/binaries/29/29574.gifhttp://www.cannabinoid.com/wwwboard/politics/binaries/29/29561.gifhttp://www.cannabinoid.com/wwwboard/politics/binaries/29/29559.gifhttp://www.cannabinoid.com/wwwboard/politics/binaries/29/29553.gif
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: