Law Articles

Return to Law Dictionary Index

Drug Testing: A Bad Investment - Executive Summary

Driven by an industry-led panic that drug use is common -- even epidemic -- in America's workforce, employers today require tens of millions of American workers from all walks of life -- most of whom are not even suspected of using drugs -- to pass a urine test to get a new job or to keep the one they have. 

Most employers, however, have never examined their programs to see if the investment is paying dividends through decreased accidents and absenteeism, and increased efficiency and productivity. The American Management Association reports that less than 10 percent of its members with drug testing programs have ever conducted a cost-benefit analysis. 

Furthermore, respected scientific institutions such as the National Academy of Sciences have looked at the record and found little support for most of the drug testing industry's claims. 

This special report by the American Civil Liberties Union presents an analysis of ten years of research and empirical evidence on drug use among workers, its impact on work performance, and whether drug testing is an effective tool for identifying drug abusers in the workplace. 

Our conclusion: the major research findings contradict the claims of drug testing's promoters: 

• Based on results from the federal government's drug testing program, a study estimated that it costs $77,000 to find one drug user       
• "Lost productivity"studies claiming that drug users cost businesses up to $100 billion each year are based on vague comparisons of household drug use and income, with no analysis of actual productivity data       
• "Junk science" fueled the growth of drug testing through the drug industry's promotion of unsubstantiated claims and phantom research       
• A recent survey of 63 Silicon Valley companies found that drug testing reduces, rather than enhances, worker productivity       
• The moderate use of illicit drugs by workers during off-duty hours is no more likely than moderate off-duty alcohol use to compromise workplace safety

Given the weight of the scientific evidence, the ACLU challenges employers to reconsider drug testing and look at alternative solutions which are more cost effective and do not raise the same privacy and fairness problems. The solutions include: 

• Impairment testing of workers in safety-sensitive positions       
• Wider use of Employee Assistance Programs that can make appropriate referrals to substance abuse programs       
• Supervisor training to identify, confront and refer impaired workers to Employee Assistance Programs       
• More stringent reference checking

The ACLU is sending  Drug Testing: A Bad Investment  to CEOs, union officials and human resources professionals, urging them to consider these less intrusive alternatives to urine testing as a condition of employment. 

"We have always believed drug testing unimpaired workers stands the presumption of innocence on its head and violates the most fundamental privacy rights," ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser says in the report. "Now we know that sacrificing these rights serves no legitimate business purpose either."

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

Return to Civil Rights

Return to Law Dictionary Index