US
workers are failing drug tests at an incredible rate, but legal weed has the
future of these screenings in doubt, by Allana Akhtar, 4/18/19. As more states move to legalize marijuana, employers
are starting to rethink pre-employment screenings for drugs.
Are workplace drug screening tests effective?Urine tests, the most common among employers, do little to prove whether an employee is a habitual marijuana user and links between positive drug tests and employee performance are weak.
Are workplace drug screening tests effective?Urine tests, the most common among employers, do little to prove whether an employee is a habitual marijuana user and links between positive drug tests and employee performance are weak.
Some experts believe testing for marijuana intoxication
should stay in place, particularly in industries that operate heavy machinery,
though they agree the type of testing must evolve.
With the
increased legalization of marijuana, many businesses and politicians are
reconsidering workplace drug testing. Though drug testing likely won't
disappear forever, experts predict the scope of testing will decrease and they
say the type of testing should change.
Earlier
this month, a report by clinical laboratory Quest Diagnostics found the number
of US workers and job applicants testing positive for
drugs hit a 14-year high, with marijuana positivity leading the way. Around the
same time, New York City approved a bill that would prohibit forcing job
candidates to take marijuana screening tests, and Citigroup told Business
Insider reporter Jeremy Berke it may reevaluate its policy to screen
applicants for marijuana.
New York
State is considering becoming
the 11th state to legalize recreational marijuana. The state is already among
the 33 that legalized the
use of medicinal marijuana.
With the
expected expansion to legalize marijuana within the country, the use of
employee drug screening is already falling out of fashion
among businesses.
While current screening for drugs may be flawed and costly, drug screening in
the workplace will almost certainly not go away completely, experts say.
Experts
agree urine drug testing does little to prove intoxication at the workplace,
and the link between pre-employment drug testing and better employee
performance is weak.
Workplace
drug testing became commonplace in the 1980s during Ronald Reagan's "War
on Drugs," when the president signed an executive order that mandated federal
employers refrain
from using drugs. The policy led to drug testing for employee candidates, and
the development of a huge industry that facilitates drug pre-screening,
according to Michael Frone, author of " Alcohol and
Illicit Drug Use in the Workforce and Workplace."
In his
research, Frone finds little proof that drug tests reduce future substance use.
In fact, he says testing deters employees from applying to companies that have
a pre-screening policy in place.
Likewise,
Mark Kleiman, a professor of public policy at New York University, reported
that studies measuring pre-employment drug testing's impact on projected
employee performance are either out-of-date or use small sample sizes.
"Whether the predictive value of a positive test result is the same when
applicants have incentives to actively avoid testing positive isn't
obvious," Kleiman wrote to Vox.
Paul
Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws, told Business Insider that drug screening won't indicate
whether a job candidate is an active user, and that urine tests do not indicate
marijuana intoxication in current employees. THC, the chemical responsible for
marijuana's psychoactive effects, may remain in the body
for days or even weeks after a person used cannabis— meaning a positive
test for cannabis does not indicate current intoxication, nor the frequency of
use.
Pre-screening
for drugs may also be an unnecessary cost for employers: Drug tests can cost
$30 to $50 each, according to Bloomberg.
Jeremy
Kidd, associate professor of law at Mercer University, studied the economics of
drug testing in the workplace if employers had full autonomy. Kidd said
employers now have incentives to pull back marijuana testing with increased
legalization, since the drug prompted pre-employment screening in the first place.
He theorized that decreasing pre-employment screening may lead to hiring better
employees.
"What
you ideally want as an employer is the largest pool possible to choose
from," Kidd told Business Insider. "The larger the pool, the better
chance you have to select the best employee."
The need for testing in safety-sensitive workplaces - There are
some industries where workplace drug testing will likely remain. In New York,
the proposed legislation will not ban certain professions from drug testing, including
federal contract positions, and safety and security sensitive jobs.
Transportation,
construction and manufacturing industries all saw at least 20% increases in
marijuana positivity rates from 2015 to 2017, according to Quest Diagnostics, and workers in
federal safety-sensitive jobs increased marijuana positivity since 2014. The
positivity for post-accident urine testing increased a whopping 81% from 2014
to 2018.
"Increases
in post-accident positivity among safety-sensitive workers should serve as a
warning to employers that employee drug use may increase the risk of workforce
accidents or injuries," said Kimberly Samano, PhD, scientific director at
Quest Diagnostics, in a press release.
The
decrease in drug screening could pose a more complex problem for industries
that operate heavy machinery: with more employees testing positive for
marijuana, how do you maintain a drug-free workplace while still attracting the
best talent?
Michigan,
where manufacturing jobs employ nearly 14% of the state, voted to fully
legalize marijuana in 2018. The legalization raises questions to drug testing,
as Detroit-based Ford Motor Company and Fiat Chrysler will continue to
urine-test applicants, and will disqualify candidates if tests come out positive,
the Detroit Free Press reports.
While
manufacturing industries want to appeal to the largest pool of applicants
possible, companies maintain that intoxication on the job is dangerous,
according to Delaney McKinley, director of government affairs at the Michigan
Manufacturing Association. "There are so many advances and changes in the
auto industry; we're moving from traditional gas engines toward electrification
and autonomous vehicles," McKinley said in an interview. "We're in
more desperate need of new talent than ever. Michigan is absolutely in a tight
situation here."
Another
reason, Kidd says, that drug screening would not go away is to prevent
liability of an employer in court in the case of an employee accident. The
difference in federal and state laws regarding marijuana also incentivize
employers that operate in multiple states to keep drug-screening tests, Andrew Singer,
chair of employment law practice at a New York City-based law firm told
Business Insider.
Armentano
says he does not argue for getting rid of drug testing completely, but says
urine testing does not provide conclusive evidence of current intoxication.
Instead, he says it "discriminates" against casual marijuana users in
legal states.
Armentano
advocates for performance testing: you measure a baseline level of performance
for subjects, and if you suspect they are under the influence, you measure
potentially intoxicated employee performance with the baseline. There are
already companies that specialize
in performance testing and technology as a potential alternative to urine
testing.
"There's
a greater awareness that individuals who use marijuana off the job do not
present a safety risk to employers," Armentano said. "[Urine testing]
punishes for behavior outside the workplace. It seems to be a holdover from a
very different time in America, where marijuana use was not legally
regulated."
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment