DRUG TESTING LOSING FAVOR WITH EMPLOYERS

Screening not working as hoped in 1980s

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."