Smoke Screen

Origins

In the beginning, drug-testing was non-existent, when it came to securing employment. This lasted through the ‘80’s, in spite of drug use expanding on an exponential scale during the late 60’s, with marijuana, cocaine in the 70’s, and crack and heroine in the 80’s. Work on the job was performed, nonetheless, but at a lower level of productivity, with employers attempting to deal with the situation, while unaware of the real reasons behind it. Over time, workers continued to arrive late, on a consistent basis; or not showing up altogether.

Tardiness and absenteeism became par for the course in the 80’s, within both the public and private sector, with employers instituting a drug-testing program as a matter-of-fact, when either patterns of behavior or unprofessionalism warranted it (constant tardiness or excessive absence), or an accident occurring, in areas of public safety. Later on, it was discovered airline pilots were regularly drinking prior to their flights. Drug and alcohol testing became the standard, immediately after accidents occurred.

Government Oversight

Eventually, state and local agencies began testing as part of the pre-employment process. It was presumed that the salaries of public employees on both the local and state level, were considered the result of the tax-paying citizens, and thus, accountable to those tax-paying citizens. How one begets the other, is still a matter of justification, especially when one has nothing to do with the other, as it pertains to, the a matter of employment.


Private Sector

Somewhere down the line, the private sector jumped on board, to show they were in support of the “War On Drugs”, implementing the same “drug-free workplace” stance, and subsequent testing, prior to employment. This is where the program became a smokescreen, and more of a matter of public relations promotion. At the time, it was mostly law firms taking up the issue, since they were beholden to the letter of the law, as it pertained to their business practices. It wasn’t so much law firms in general, that were taking up the practice of testing as part of a drug-free workplace, but more about covering their ass, considering they were now the predominant industry utilizing the services of outsource agencies.

Outsource agencies are one step above that of temporary/for-hire agencies. They negotiate with corporate firms to handle administrative responsibilities, freeing up the firm from having to cover the employees’ benefits, healthcare and 401k. The firm saves on those costs, and the outsource agencies pay their staff at a lower rate. The agencies also cover their own absenteeism with a pool of available staff; another benefit to the firm, since previous absenteeism within the firm resulted in lost productivity and additional manpower costs.

Because the pay scale is lower within the outsource industry, it attracted younger, less-than-qualified, applicants, that are primarily right out of high school. While some are continuing their education on the side, others are simply working to subsidize their extra-curricular activities, with no intention of continuing employment with the agency. These outsource agencies saw the same patterns as that of the fast-food and retail industries, with the hiring of youth, and while generally-speaking, the turnover was expected, the tardiness and absenteeism posed a problem.

While considered unfair, on the whole, it was viewed and seen first-hand, much of the tardiness and absenteeism, along with low productivity and lack of enthusiasm, was either a direct or indirect result of drug and/or alcohol consumption.

To combat this, theoretically- and hypothetically-speaking, they instituted the same program of pre-screening as that of local and state government positions.


Objective vs. Subjective

For the most part, pre-employment screening creates an aura of mistrust, when employment has yet to even begin. Technically, a drug test is only warranted when an incident has occurred, that would justify it in the first place, to support the possibility the incident was, in fact, a result of drug- or alcohol-related intoxication.

While those circumstances are understandable, the public sector is another story. Public employees are responsible to the taxpayer. So, in the best interest of public employment, testing may or may not be required as a condition of employment. In the field of law enforcement, it is pretty much a given, that it is done.


A Matter Of Science

It is a proven scientific fact that consumption of any substance, legal or illegal, dissipates over time (within a few hours). The flaw in drug-testing is that the residuals of all drugs, including alcohol, show up as positive, but there is no proof that the effects themselves are still present. Any effects of whatever was consumed the night before, will wear off over the course of the night. After-effects, more commonly known as a “hangover”, may linger, and the residuals of whatever was consumed, will also remain, and subsequently be present in any such testing, but the actual effects that were present the night before, are no longer present the next day.

Reality/Observation

Unfortunately, the pre-employment screening doesn’t take into account the responsibility of the individual in particular. Case in point: myself.

I have witnessed first-hand, on many occasions, at several employers, over the years, to know when other employees are either under the influence of drugs/alcohol, on the job, or arriving late, and/or calling in sick as a result of excessive drug/alcohol use. As a former user, I know; not by exhibiting the same habits of tardiness and absenteeism, but by recognizing the same habits of others. On many occasions, I was with said individuals. And while I managed to make it to work on time, or not call in sick altogether, my associates/counterparts were not so enthusiastic.

I have also witnessed first-hand, the efforts of those who would attempt to circumvent the process. I purchase all of my health supplements at the same location. The owner/manager has become a close personal friend. One day, while shopping in his store, a driver for the city’s transit system (MUNI), came in, and asked for a specific supplement. I asked my friend what he purchased. I was told it was a drink consisting of a multitude of vitamins; heavy on B-Complex, and Goldenseal, an herb whose sole purpose was detoxification. I asked my friend what it was for, and I was told it was primarily marketed as a pre-drug-screening elixir to immediately eliminate illegal toxins that would normally appear in a drug test. It was intended to be consumed the same day as a test. Evidently, this was an item regularly purchased by drivers, to clear their systems, since drug screening was performed at random, and not just as a result of an accident.

I realize I may be part of a minority, who choose to do whatever, as a matter of choice, on their own time, but also, at the same time, recognize there is a level of responsibility that must be maintained, and, at that same time, perform at a level of productivity that doesn’t suffer as a result of activities outside of work. But if that level of productivity while you’re present, is sub-standard, due to previous activities outside of work, then you’re no different than the individual who chose to not even show up.

So basically, it really has nothing to do with consumption, as a whole, but more about the individual, and their habits on the job, whether they be lack of productivity, tardiness, and/or absenteeism. Testing as part of pre-employment, does nothing to deter the use and consumption. Depending on the item, it only takes a matter of a week, at the least, up to a month, at most, to clear the system, if one knows a test is part of the pre-screening process. How does one know if it is part of the process? Most employment postings will give it away by simply listing at the bottom: “...is a drug-free workplace.” Also, most law firms, and all outsource agencies do so.