Biological Testing: Drug Testing in the Workplace
Substance abuse and the potential dangers it poses in the workplace are well documented in terms of their negative impact from both human and economic perspectives (Bouchery, Harwood, Sacks, Simon, & Brewer, 2011; French, Maclean, Sindelar, & Fang, 2011; Gates, Grove, & Copeland, 2013; Holland, 2016; Roche, Pidd, & Kostadinov, 2016). These issues are often the catalyst for the use of biological forms of monitoring and surveillance in the workplace. For example, a key argument for enacting such testing is the need to provide a safe workplace. Employers are generally subject to legal liability through the actions and/or omissions of their employees regardless of their state of mind. The use of drug testing programmes in both employment and pre-employment testing is argued to help reduce accidents and is potentially an effective way of removing the issue of substance abuse in the workplace (Ames & Bennet, 2011; Flynn, 1999; Holland, Pyman, & Teicher, 2005). These points provide a compelling case for drug testing in the workplace. Firstly, to ensure that the employee is meeting his/her contractual obligations to a satisfactory standard. Secondly, to meet the employerâs requirements of duty of care under health and safety legislation (Bohle & Quinlan, 2000; Holland, 2016; Holland et al., 2005). Implicit in these points is the potential that employers who do not have drug testing policies and programmes are maintaining an unsafe workplace (Webb & Festa, 1994).
However, the cost-effectiveness and overall value of drug testing is questionable. As Gip (1999) points out, research has found that most workers who use illicit drugs never use them at work, and when they use drugs on their own time, they do so in a way that does not affect work performance. Further, within the scope of the employment contract, performance is an important and related consideration in the drug testing debate. As DesJardine and McCall (1990, p. 203) point out: âTo what level of performance are employers entitled to?â If an employeeâs productivity is satisfactory and he/she is meeting contractual obligations, the knowledge of drug use on grounds of productivity is not pertinent. Further, whilst the issue of duty of care is important, not every job has the potential to do harm. DesJardine and McCall (1990) argue that by saying employers can use drug testing to prevent harm is in effect not to say that every employer has the right to know about the drug use of every employee. In this context therefore, less intrusive testing alternatives such as impairment testing to determine fitness for work are likely to be more effective and are less likely to raise privacy, fairness or ethical concerns. These are important considerations for employees and their representatives when drug testing is being considered or implemented in the workplace.
From an employeeâs perspective, a further consideration is the principal of the right to privacy (Greenwood, Holland, & Choon, 2006). Using Millsâ principle of liberty, Bowie and Duska (1990) argue that employees have the right to do whatever they wish as long as it does not harm the employer. In this context, if a person chooses to partake in illicit drugs outside of their work commitments, it is of no concern to the employer so long as it does not impinge on work performance (Bowie & Duska, 1990; Greenwood et al., 2006). In addition, drug testing can suffer from accuracy problems. Typically, drug tests cannot determine whether the effects of illicit drugs, which may remain in the system for days and even weeks, will substantially impair or affect performance. Webb and Festa (1994) also note that the link between drug usage and on-the-job injuries is tenuous at best. If drug use in the private domain of the lives of employees does not impinge on performance at work, would such drug testing at the workplace be akin to Henry Fordâs âsociology departmentâ where investigators monitored the private lives of the workers and their families to ensure that they were leading âhealthyâ and âmoralâ lifestyles?
Additionally, drug testing may also uncover other medical conditions or the use of over-the-counter or prescribed drugs by employees (such as metabolites of morphine), which have the potential to affect the employment status of workers (Holland, 2016). Employees also have a right to âinformational privacyâ (Holland et al., 2005). This supports DesJardine and McCall (1990) and Greenwood et al. (2006), who argue the employeeâs right to privacy is violated when personal information is harvested which is irrelevant to the job. Therefore, the argument that the innocent has nothing to fear from drug testing is erroneous, because it may violate employee rights â particularly if testing has the potential to provide the employer with generic medical information which is not relevant to the contractual relationship (Cranford, 2001). In addition, mandatory testing may be open to improper or malicious use of procedures to intimidate or target employees who undertake activities that may be unpopular with management, such as union activism (Webb & Festa, 1994). In addition, in this day and age the potential for this information to be âhackedâ is not to be underestimated. Therefore, the use of drug testing within the workplace may create an atmosphere of insecurity, oppression and anxiety in employees, and may actually result in lower performance and higher turnover (Bohle & Quinlan, 2000) Whilst methodological problems remain (see Holland, 2016; Holland et al., 2005), it is also worth noting the internet is replete with tips on how to mask illicit drug use and evade drug tests and detection. Indeed, as can be seen with the recent ban of the Russian team from the 2018 Winter Olympics, such processes can be developed at a very sophisticated level.
Within the larger context of the employment relationship, work culture and the social environment have also been identified as critical and complex factors in the drug testing debate (Frone, 2009). For example, a culture of drug use â both legal and illicit drugs â in geographically isolated locations has been linked to the physical and dangerous nature of the work (see Allsop, Phillips, & Calogero, 2001; Allsop & Pidd, 2001). This leads to other cultural issues in the workplace, with research finding a link between the nature of work in general and associated drug use (Allsop et al., 2001; French et al., 2011). Issues of control, alienation, isolation and stress â linked with individualsâ perceptions of their powerlessness â have been identified as factors related to drug use in the workplace (Ames & Grube, 1999; Bohle & Quinlan, 2000; Greenburg & Greenburg, 1995; Roche, Kostadinov, & Fischer, 2017). As Midford (2001, p. 46) argues:
In the workplace, holding the view that drug use is a problem for the individual worker is functional from the point of view of the employers, because it avoids any exploration of how the workplace may contribute to the problem. However, to gain an understanding of workplace drug problems, one must look at a full range of factors that influence patterns of drug use.
Unions and others argue (Holland et al., 2005; Mansfield, 2001), for the joint development and implementation of drug testing policy by employee representatives, employees and employers, particularly where the misuse of alcohol or illicit drugs are identified as workplace issues (Pidd, Roche, & Buisman-Piljman, 2011; Spicer, Miller, & Smith, 2003). Indeed, any policies dealing with workplace hazards and health and safety should be jointly developed and implemented, with a focus on promoting safety at work through addressing the causes of alcohol or illicit drug misuse in the workplace (Frone, 2016; Schou & Moan, 2016). This necessitates a consultative, educative and rehabilitative approach rather than a punitive approach; and the maintenance of confidentiality at all levels (Holland, 2016; Mansfield, 2001).
This pluralist stance is based upon the argument that it is only when drugs and alcohol are misused to the extent that the user cannot properly and safely carry out regular duties insomuch that a need for control and prevention measures arise. In any consideration of an appropriate response, particularly in workplace, there must be an examination of the broader environmental factors pertaining to the individual workplace or industry (Frone, 2016; Roche et al., 2017). This is because the misuse of alcohol and other drugs may be symptomatic of other problems which are in the control of the employer. For example, shiftwork and longer working hours, monotonous or repetitive work, fatigue, workplace stressors or job insecurity and control (Frone, 2016; Holland, 2016).
This approach is supported by the work of Duffy and Ask (2001) and Hagen, Egan, and Eltringham (1992) who found a link between higher alcohol consumption and work pressure, lack of control and over-work. This is also supported by the work of Phillip (2001), and Roman, Johnson, and Blum (2000) in terms of the relationship between stress at work and increased alcohol consumption. Indeed, the fatigue generat...
