Drug testing in the workplace: the allure of management technologies

Abstract

Discusses US use of drug testing in the workplace, screening employees for smoking, AIDS, genetic traits and reproductive hazards. Attributes this to the costs employers face in insurance, litigation and compensation. Points out that the purpose of drug testing is to circumvent management responsibility for: accidents in the workplace, stress, bad management practices, and disregarding health and safety initiatives. Acknowledges that the tests are harmful and indefensible. Reports that 81 per cent of members of the American Management Association in 1996 conducted drug testing. Claims that screening is the alternative to monitoring – that is screening out individuals who are seen as high risk in some way – yet that misses the point – the focus should be on making hazardous working conditions safe. Indicates that companies may use drug testing as a means of deterring drug users from gravitating towards their organization. Mentions that workplace‐induced stress can lead to substance abuse and that, therefore it is management driven, rather than being a problem the worker brings to the workplace. Quotes a number of company physicians who object to policing drug use. Indicates that drug testing has diverted attention away from health and safety issues and hazardous working conditions.

The devil in high heels: drugs, symbolism and Kate Moss

“…He suggested that social ceremonies involving scapegoats, magical or medical, serve to unite individuals in groups by identifying a common menace linked to a deviant practice. By way of illustration in an organisational context, both Gilliom (1994) and Draper (1998) have argued that drug users have functioned as a convenient scapegoat upon which management may shift responsibility for health and safety concerns in the workplace. Widening the focus further, it is important to note how certain other groups have also been identified as menacing for the social order.…”

“…Some argue that the economic-cultural context which encourages high achievement and success seems to instigate the use of performance-enhancing strategies, including the use of stimulants, smart drugs vitamins or illegal drugs, the case of sports drug use being one of the prominent examples, but applicable to other demanding professions (Reinerman and . Similarly, evidence poor is that organisational responses to the actual or perceived threat of drugs have been efficacious in reducing employee drug use (Jardine-Tweedle and Wright 1998) or in helping employees' health (Draper 1998). In the light of such critiques, some have questioned whether anti-drug policies and workforce drug testing should actually be understood as a response, rational or not, to drug use at all.…”

“…It has been suggested, for example, that the reported threat of employees' drug use may be a cloak behind which attempts to secure greater organisational control may be hidden. Workforce drug testing and anti-drug policies have been variously said to represent an attempt to shift costs and responsibility for health and safety issues from the employer to the employee (Draper 1998), an attempt to assert greater control over the labour process through rooting-out those employees with a propensity to break bureaucratic order (Gilliom 1994), and have been presented as part of a wider movement toward a surveillance society within which each individual employee feels, and eventually internalises, the gaze of officialdom (Hecker and Kaplan 1989).…”

Organizational Interpretations of Drug Test Results

“…Furthermore, other studies (French et al 2004) show how drug testing creates several unintended effects for employers, as it effectively deters prospective applicants and generates additional costs related to staff turnover, increased staff recruitment, and administration of the drug tests. Underlying these mixed results are the differences among the types of settings and people being tested (Borg 2000;Borg & Arnold 1997;Boyes-Watson 1997;Draper 1998;Haapanen et al 1998;Kleiman et al 2002;Knudsen et al 2003;Turner & Petersilia 1992).…”

Negotiating and Teaching Workplace Drug Testing: A Labor Perspective

“…Attitudes towards the use of drugs from marijuana to spousal prescriptions, indeed the very definition of a drug-for example, the commonplace separation of alcohol from other drugs-vary widely (American Civil Liberties Union 1999). Workplace drug testing is still relatively rare in Europe but in the United States managerial control is noted as an underlying value of workplace drug testing (Cavannaugh and Pushkala 1994;Draper 1998;Gilliom 1994). When workplace drug testing is on the collective bargaining agenda, union concerns are raised regarding regulation of off duty conduct, privacy of medical information, and stigmatization of workers who test positive.…”