cannabisnews.com: Drug Testing Losing Favor with Employers Drug Testing Losing Favor with Employers Posted by FoM on January 29, 2001 at 19:29:00 PT By Charlene Oldham, The Dallas Morning News Source: Dallas Morning News Those who want a job in America with Plano-based Electronic Data Systems Inc. must hand over a hair sample for drug testing – in addition to a well-crafted resume and solid references.Across the Canadian border, however, hair samples aren't required at EDS locations. "Because of cultural differences, it's not as accepted there, and we would no longer be considered a preferred employer," said EDS spokeswoman Leslie Hueholt. "It would apparently impact our ability to recruit in Europe and Canada."Drug testing may also be losing popularity in the United States. Thanks to historically low unemployment rates, large numbers of job-seekers are refusing the tests as an invasion of privacy and turning to employers who don't require them, according to the American Management Association. At the same time, researchers are finding that drug testing doesn't deter drug use or boost productivity as much as it was hoped in the 1980s, when they first were used on a large scale."As a result, there has been a statistically significant decline in testing," said Eric Greenberg, director of management studies for the New York-based management association. "It seems logical to assume that comes, in part, because of concerns over recruitment and retention."Last year, an association survey found that about 66 percent of U.S. companies required some kind of pre-employment drug screening. That's down from a peak of 81 percent in 1996, Mr. Greenberg said."Today, the low unemployment rate [about 4 percent] might have human resources managers considering the old adage, 'Don't ask questions if you don't want to hear the answers,'" he said.Proponents of testing argue that drug users cost U.S. businesses as much as $100 billion in lost productivity every year. And there are additional costs related to firing drug-using employees and rehiring and training their replacements."Why hire on a problem?" said Becky Vance, executive director of Drug Free Business Houston. "It costs a lot of money right now to fire someone. You are going to have to pay big time in recruitment costs and training."But a 1998 analysis from two economics professors at Le Moyne College in Syracuse, N.Y., found that drug testing can sometimes stymie worker productivity. Dr. Edward Shepard, a co-author of the study, which surveyed 63 computer equipment and software firms, speculated that the lower productivity is the result of a distrustful office environment created by drug testing."I've never really seen a study showing testing would have a positive effect on productivity," Dr. Shepard said. "It costs a lot and doesn't get you much, if anything."Charles Alvison, a corporate drug-testing consultant, also said the drop in drug tests may be due to managers of the baby boom generation who have a different attitude about drug testing than their older predecessors."Because a lot of executives grew up in the '60s and '70s, they've been through that phase, and they understand that drug use is not necessarily the same as drug abuse," Mr. Alvison said.That more casual attitude is particularly prevalent at start-up companies, where managers are hungry for both employees and extra cash. Ms. Vance's agency advocates a drug-free policy that includes written guidelines, supervisor and employee training, testing and an employee assistance program that can help employees who have a drug problem.Such comprehensive approaches result in lower drug-positive tests than programs that rely on testing alone, the American Management Association has found.That's one reason that drug testing isn't likely to disappear from the workplace. Drug testing also has become as much a part of corporate culture as vacation time and sick days, said Mr. Alvison, whose Oklahoma City-based company, testclear.com, advises companies and individuals about drug-testing policies."I think it's well-rooted in the culture now. One of the first things you see when you open some employee handbooks is the drug-testing policy," Mr. Alvison said. Still, companies are all over the board when it comes to drug testing: • At carriers such as Dallas-based Southwest Airlines Co. and Houston-based Continental Airlines Inc., the Federal Aviation Administration requires pre-employment and random testing of "safety sensitive" employees, including pilots, flight attendants and mechanics. Last year, Southwest did 9,150 pre-employment screenings and 3,028 random tests, said spokeswoman Kristin Nelson.• Brinker International Inc., a Dallas-based restaurant company, only tests workers who drive as part of their job, unless managers suspect an employee is using drugs. The company has considered wider testing, but it found the rate of return would be "minuscule" compared with the costs, spokesman Tim Smith said. • Some retailers, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Home Depot Inc., require pre-employment drug tests for prospective employees. Home Depot applicants must take a drug test within 48 hours of a job offer and can't start work until it comes back negative, spokeswoman Mandy Holton said.• Papa John's International Inc. does background checks for prospective pizzeria managers and checks driving records of its delivery people, but it doesn't screen for illegal drugs. "We do not have a drug-testing policy and have never had one," said Karen Sherman, a spokeswoman for the Kentucky-based company. "In the quick-service food industry, the turnover is so high that you could have someone tested, and they could be gone before you get the results back." Note: Screening not working as hoped in 1980s.Source: Dallas Morning News (TX)Published: January 29, 2001Author: Charlene Oldham, The Dallas Morning NewsCopyright: 2001 The Dallas Morning NewsAddress: P.O. Box 655237, Dallas, Texas 75265Fax: (972) 263-0456Contact: letterstoeditor dallasnews.comWebsite: http://www.dallasnews.com/Feedback: http://dmnweb.dallasnews.com/letters/Forum: http://forums.dallasnews.com/cgi-bin/wwwthreads.plCannabisNews Drug Testing Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/drug_testing.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #7 posted by observer on January 30, 2001 at 18:29:57 PT EDS Burned by Their Own Stupidity I recently had a run in with the Perot folks taking over my former employers. The short story is that at least the top 10 performers walked out rather than submitting to the urine test. now the Ross boys are in for a fine time and more important the company's customers have been left to hang dry in key projects.That's sad, but I'm glad that the employees got together and stood up the this abuse. I hope people consider doing this in similar situations. When enough people got together often enough, and tell the totalitarians where they can put their pee cups, these base violations of human rights and decency shall stop. It will give the EDS micromanagers something to think about as the deadlines slip. [In 1979] the governor of Texas requested Perot's help in dealing with the growing problem of the use of illegal drugs in the state. Perot led the Texans' War on Drugs Committee that proposed five laws to make Texas the least desirable state for illegal drug operations. All five bills were passed by the legislature and signed into law. . . http://www.perot.org/hrpbio.htmTexas ... Possession: 2 oz.: 0 - 1 year; $4,000 > 4 oz.: 180 days - 2 years; $10,000 > 5 lbs.: 2 - 10 years; $10,000 > 50 lbs.: 2 - 20 years; $10,000 > 2,000 lbs.: 5 - 99 years; $50,000 http://www.norml.org/legal/state_laws4.shtml#texasThose, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Ben FranklinIf I instituted drug testing at Cypress, I would get a brick through my windshield, and I would deserve it. -- T.J. Rogers, President, Cypress Semiconductor H. Ross Perot (EDS) -- employee policy culture [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Sudaca on January 30, 2001 at 16:04:21 PT Perot I recently had a run in with the Perot folks taking over my former employers. The short story is that at least the top 10 performers walked out rather than submitting to the urine test. now the Ross boys are in for a fine time and more important the company's customers have been left to hang dry in key projects. What kills me is that this took place in the Bay Area, I guess the cultural differences in Canada are more important, cause boy Dallas Texas and San Francisco are just about the same.. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Sudaca on January 30, 2001 at 16:03:04 PT Perot I recently had a run in with the Perot folks taking over my former employers. The short story is that at least the top 10 performers walked out rather than submitting to the urine test. now the Ross boys are in for a fine time and more important the company's customers have been left to hang dry in key projects. What kills me is that this took place in the Bay Area, I guess the cultural differences in Canada are more important, cause boy Dallas Texas and San Francisco are just about the same.. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on January 30, 2001 at 10:24:10 PT: "Cultural differences"? 'Across the Canadian border, however, hair samples aren't required at EDS locations. "Because of cultural differences, it's not as accepted there, and we would no longer be considered a preferred employer," said EDS spokeswoman Leslie Hueholt.'Hmmm. Now this is very interesting.Despite what some naysayers might think, there are very subtle but deep differences between Candians and Americans. Once you become aware of them, they take on a very interesting juxtaposition in viewpoints. But is the difference that is alluded to in this article indicative of something learned?Americans have been forced, by and large through the exigencies of the Cold War, to accept infringements upon their personal liberties. Any research that includes a study of the National Security Act of 1947 makes it abundently clear that that was *the actual intent*. Don't take my word for it, read it yourself. Those Americans heading corporations (like Ross Perot's brainchild EDS) who have directly benefited from this culture of paranoia certainly don't want to see it end; they are making way too much money from this re-tooled version of the Cold War that is the War on (Some) Drugs. Remember all the talk about the so-called "Peace Dividend"? The US was supposed to receive it because we scaled down military operations in the face of not having a big enemy to fight, anymore? Ever wonder why we didn't get it? The WoSD is why. It's nothing but a continuation of the Cold War, with a different 'enemy'...namely, you and me.But now people are questioning the basis for the whole thing. But under the Cold War, that questioning was tantamount to treason, and the antis behave as if that were indeed the case. This is the 'cultural difference' that is alluded to.This is why so many Americans so supinely allow Da Boss to cheerfully hand them the cup; they're *programmed* to.Time was, in my Dad's generation, to be called a 'Good German' was an insult, because it connoted a herdlike attitude and a willingness to unthinkingly subborn your own freedom for a dubious cause. Europeans, having a better sense of history that most Americans, look askance at anything that smacks of giving up their personal liberties, because they have heard that line before, and know where it leads...straight into the pit of fascism. "Once burned, twice shy"...Americans have yet to learn that awful lesson. But what then are we to think of our own citizens who, docile as sheep, line up with plastic cups in their hands? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by meagain on January 30, 2001 at 04:28:15 PT My thoughts Workplace testing can actually jeopardize safety in a strange way ...follow me if you willtake for instance 2 employees both forklift drivers 1 driver A uses marijuana driver B however does not..2. In the event of a workplace accident they are both required to submit to a urine test...3.Driver A worried for failing becomes a very catious employee careful not to "hit" anything...4.Driver B become less safety concious "he has nothing to worry about if he causes an accident he won't fail the urine test.I have witness this happen luckily no one was walking by the rack driver B was putting parts in 15 feet in the air, 2 tons of steel came crashing to the floor > the driver didn't even seem concerned "oh well I won't burn the cup" also with another employer I happened to fail one of these random test odd it seemed as the plant manager with a clear odor of a lunchtime drink fired me for failing my foreman however said to me as I was leaving " I would give up everyone on my shift for a group of people that worked as hard as you"When this company initiated random testing they lost their best most productive employees within a year they were left busing in people that couldn't keep the place running ... now even after they have stopped their random testing they have yet to recover several lines have been shut down.~~~~~~~~~~~~In memory of all of us in Dept 800 !~~~~~~~~~~ [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by legalizeit on January 29, 2001 at 22:49:10 PT We are winning, little by little... ...now even big companies are beginning to realize they've been hoodwinked by greedy drug testing companies and prohib drivel.It was interesting that testclear.com was mentioned in the same article! The article says they "advise" people about testing, but a visit to their site reveals that they carry a full line of products designed to help one pass drug tests.I served in the US Navy in the mid-late eighties, and one of the reasons I didn't serve more than one hitch was the constant threat of random drug testing and the all-out drug paranoia going on in the service. Once, when I was walking to the ship to report for duty, a couple SP's ordered a bunch of us over who were just walking down a street on the base, minding our own business, to form a line to be sniffed by a drug dog! I also got my car searched once at random when driving onto the base, and was admonished by the base police to "keep my car cleaner." (I had a lot of junk in it as I sort of lived out of it at the time.) The nerve! That I should have to keep a clean car just so the drug warriors can do their privacy-invading job with less effort!I just hope we don't ever see that level of craziness in civilian places. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: