ABC NEWS
WORLD NEWS TONIGHT WITH PETER JENNINGS
SEPTEMBER 6, 1999
Transcript # 99090604-j04

HEADLINE: DRUG TESTING IN THE WORKPLACE

BYLINE: TERRY MORAN, CHARLES GIBSON

HIGHLIGHT: DRUG TESTING ON JOB -- DOES IT WASTE TIME, MONEY?

BODY: THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND
MAY BE UPDATED.

CHARLES GIBSON: In many companies and government offices across the country,
drug testing has become a standard part of the job. Testing policies are
usually based on the conventional wisdom that workers who have the
possibility of a drug test hanging over their heads will use fewer drugs and
be more productive. ABC's Terry Moran reports the conventional wisdom may
not be accurate.

TERRY MORAN, ABC News: (voice-over) Drug testing in the workplace may have
no bigger cheerleader than Dr. Joseph Autry, who runs the federal
government's massive drug-testing program. Dr. Joseph Autry, Department of
Health and Human Services: We know that in the federal workforce that drug
use is down, because, in part, of drug testing.

TERRY MORAN: (voice-over) Spurred on by the government, more than
three-quarters of major U.S. companies now drug test their workers. But all
that testing comes with a price, a high price. According to a 1991 study,
the government spent $11.7 million testing 29,000 workers for drugs, but
only identified 153 drug users -- a cost of $77,000 per positive result.
More and more researchers say that drug testing is simply not effective.

Prof. LYNN ZIMMER, Sociologist, City University of New York: There's no
evidence that drug testing accomplishes what employers want it to
accomplish. That is that there's no evidence that it increases productivity,
decreases accidents or increases profits in the workplace.

TERRY MORAN: (voice-over) In fact, two studies of postal workers showed no
difference in the rate of accidents between those testing positive for drugs
and their colleagues. (on camera) Some people argue that there are better,
cheaper and less intrusive ways of ensuring safety and efficiency on the
job. Background checks, performance tests and closer monitoring of workers
can all accomplish just as much and perhaps more than drug testing.
(voice-over) Very few companies have ever done cost-benefit analyses of
their drug-testing programs. Those that have say it's not worth it.

ROBERT FIELD, Business Owner: It's not a good use of scarce resources.

TERRY MORAN: (voice-over) So, while the conventional wisdom says that drug
testing workers improves performance on the job, the research shows that
theory may be a faulty and costly belief. Terry Moran, ABC News, New York.

CHARLES GIBSON: While drug testing may be a bad investment for many
companies, drug use in the workplace is still a big problem. There is one
estimate that drug use by employees costs businesses as much as $100 billion
a year.

In a moment, marking the millennium in some of the most peculiar ways. We'll
take "A Closer Look."