DEBATING DRUG TESTING

With Money Tight And Hiring Down, Some Companies Are Tracking Employees Less

They are the staples of a modern-day job search: a polished rRegistered
sumRegistered , glowing references and a clean urine sample. Without
fulfilling that last criteria for a satisfactory drug screen, applicants at
many U.S. companies can forget about employment.

But as thousands of displaced workers hunt for new jobs in the current
economic slump and hiring has slowed, the $737 million drug-testing
industry's expansion in workplaces has slowed accordingly. And some
employers are also less willing to spend money for drug testing if they do
not think that it contributes to the bottom line.

Laboratories also struggle to provide accurate testing results despite
"counterproducts" -- the array of additives, cleansers and gizmos, readily
available on the Internet, that employees can utilize to circumvent a
positive drug test.

Workplace drug tests -- primarily of job applicants, but also of existing
employees, in some cases -- took off during the "just say no" era of the
1980s, with heavy promotion by the federal government. Sixty-one percent of
companies now screen job applicants, and 50 percent test their existing
employees, according to the American Management Association's most recent
survey in 2001. That is down from the 1996 peak, when 68 percent of
employers screened candidates.

Meldron Young, the association's human resources practice consultant, said
drug tests remain a standard element of most employers' hiring procedures.
But the weak economy has prompted businesses to review spending, and some
have eliminated drug screens for employees whose duties do not pose safety
risks.

Although the notion that drug users make for bad employees has a
common-sense appeal, Young said companies generally have not quantified the
before-and-after results of their anti-drug campaigns. Without evidence of
drug testing's advantages to their own operations, some managers are less
willing than they used to be to spend roughly $30 apiece to test applicants
and employees, he said.

Advocates of workplace drug testing cite a number of bottom-line benefits
to employers who ferret out drug users. But opponents cite their own
statistics to argue to businesses that drug screens are a waste of money.

The American Civil Liberties Union, in a 1999 report, argued that drug
testing programs are not cost-effective -- costing industries millions of
dollars a year to nab the small percentage of workers who use drugs. Citing
several academic and other studies, the ACLU claims that drug users are not
any more likely than their non-user counterparts to have workplace accidents.

On the flip side, a 2000 study of drug testing in the construction
industry, conducted by Cornell University, concluded that companies that
tested employees lowered their injury rates more than their counterparts
that did not test.

The Labor Department cites a study conducted by the U.S. Postal Service,
which revealed that employees who tested positive in pre-employment drug
tests were 66 percent more likely to be absent and 77 percent more likely
to be discharged within three years than those who came up clean.

The cost to employers

According to the American Council for Drug Education, substance abusers,
when compared to non-abusers, are:

. Ten times more likely to miss work.

. 3.6 times more likely to be involved in on-the-job accidents.

. Five times more likely to file a worker's compensation claim.

. 33 percent less productive.

. Responsible for health care costs that are three times as high.