By R. Bruce Wright, CPCU
Editor’s Note #1: Many of you have worked with Dean Wisecarver, the founder of our company, in years past. While Dean is currently working outside the company, his principles and ideas continue to guide many of our activities. Here then is an article adapted from a paper Dean wrote in the 1990’s. I believe the thoughts he expressed then are just as important and valid today.
People who have met me have heard my opinions on drug free workplace programs before. I admit, I am no expert in substance abuse, nor are my opinions based on extensive, personal training or research on effective substance abuse avoidance programs. Still, I have been working with a variety of small, medium and large sized businesses for almost 29 years and I think I've learned a few things.
Do you have a drug-free workplace program? Do you have a substance abuse policy? Do you have a drug testing policy and program? Many if not all of the companies we work with have created or adopted such policies and programs. As an outside observer with years of experience assessing management "programs," and, having the time luxury to think about them, I have developed some opinions. There are many complex, subtle issues involved that would require a book to cover, so this article will concentrate on some core concerns.
Most of the policies and programs on substance abuse and drug testing in use today have been simply "adopted” from an outside source, quite often without much careful consideration and often as a means to meet the perceived requirements of a “drug free workplace” program. This approach results in more "boiler-plate" programs added to an already thick safety manual and policies collection. In my opinion, most of the drug screening/substance abuse policies and programs I see are, from an operational standpoint, hardly worth the paper they are written on, let alone the expense of creating them, the expense of actually doing the drug testing, or the risks of claims of unfair administration of the programs. Why do I feel this way? Because, when I ask executives what they are trying to accomplish by having such a program, most just tell me such programs are "required." I very rarely hear anything like, "As an executive and leader in this company, I want people to come to work here with clear heads, ready to accomplish good work and take pride in what they accomplish, and not endanger themselves or their coworkers." That certainly would be a refreshing answer to my question!
Let's pretend you and I are in business together and let's suppose that the refreshing answer above really is the reason we want to implement a drug abuse strategy. How would we develop such a strategy and what would it look like?
I believe the first thing we'd have to do is answer some tough questions. How do we encourage our employees not to abuse substances? What will we do with employees who have a substance abuse problem? How will we even recognize that they have a problem, short of a serious mishap? Will we test them? Will we fire or suspend them if we find they test positive? What if at some point an employee who tests positive turns out to be one of our most experienced, trusted, productive employees? Will we treat this person differently than we would treat someone who has only worked for us four months?
All of our answers to these questions should be based on our initial intent -- what it is we want to accomplish. Keeping our objective in mind will help us decide how to encourage our employees on a daily basis and how to help them take pride in both their work and the company they work for, even if it turns out they have a problem. There isn't much encouragement or pride created when we abruptly dump someone back on the street rather than deal with their personal problem. So, how can we monitor the situation in a way that provides encouragement?
Testing is just one way to monitor what's going on when it comes to possible substance abuse. Unfortunately, since testing is simple to do, it is common to rely solely on this approach. Too seldom do managers invest the time and effort train their staffs how to identify potential abuse problems through direct observation of behavior. That's too bad, because an employee's behavior will tell us far more about the extent of any problem and how far along it is than biological testing can. Understanding the degree of the problem will help us understand how to talk to the individual and what to offer, something many executives and managers are reluctant to do because they find it threatening and confrontational, and because they recognize that they don't know enough about such problems to offer ideas or help. Training on this issue is available, but too few managers seek it or take advantage of it. Don’t take this as a denial of the value of testing. Testing is a valid means of monitoring, even if it shouldn’t be the only method.
Let’s get back to our “thought experiment.” You and I want to encourage our employees not to abuse substances, so how should we set up a testing program that will show our employees we are serious in our objective to have a drug-free workplace and actually encourage them to always come to work clear headed? Beyond the initial conditional "offer of employment" screening, companies often also use some method of "for cause" testing. The "for cause" means if the employee is so noticeably drunk or disorderly that it seems likely that substance abuse is behind it, management can require a drug test. It also means that if the employee is injured on the job, drug tests can be done at the time of initial treatment for the injury. This sort of "post accident" testing is very common. But, what will you and I decide to do?
I believe our approach should be proactive not reactive. By the time there's an accident or erratic behavior on the job, we've already failed! I'm not convinced we accomplish much by conducting testing then, and it also seems inconsistent with our objective. It's too much like closing the barn door after the horse is gone. Plus, something like post accident testing may cause employees not to report accidents or mishaps, leaving us in the dark, unable to address and solve the underlying work problems that accidents reveal.
Let’s look at an analogy that might help us think this through. Seat belt use in our country provides a lesson for us. Before the seat belt laws came about, most people didn't wear them (less than 17% did) even though we all knew that doing so was good for us and our families. 
Then, when the first laws mandating the use of seat belts passed, they limited an officer's right to cite a driver for failure to wear a seat belt to only those times when the driver was in an accident without using a seat belt, or was stopped for some other violation and was not wearing a belt. When these laws were initially passed in some states, seat belt use in those states crept up a paltry amount, to just 21%. But as the laws were gradually revised to allow officers to stop and cite anyone observed who was not wearing a seat belt, use rose to almost 88% in the affected jurisdicions. Why? I believe the key is our feeling of having no control over the randomness of being discovered. Under the first approach, we felt we had control over being discovered, because we simply don't get into our cars believing we will be involved in an accident or get stopped for some moving violation. Likewise, drug or substance abusers don't come to work believing they will be involved in a workplace accident or an incident so significant as to reveal their condition. Just like with the seat belts, we, as people, believe we are in control of the situations that might reveal our lack of diligence. But once we know we are not in control of how we might be found out, we change our behavior. Thus, I believe we will accomplish more if we randomly test employees than if we rely on post accident testing. It's more proactive. And, if we include everyone in the testing pool, including ourselves and all our managers, we will be sending a very clear message to our employees that we are serious about sustaining a drug-free workplace. Furthermore, we can accurately budget the costs involved, something we can't do in a "for cause" testing program.
If we agree, how then will our program look? Here’s a rough outline of the key elements I would like to build into our program, all the while trying to support our original objective.
First, I’d start by telling everyone in the company what I would like to accomplish. This would include things like wanting to create a work environment that is conducive to good people wanting to work here and wanting to do well. In part, that means encouraging everyone who works here to come to work clear headed and rational so as not to endanger themselves or their co-workers.
Then, because I am serious about what I want to accomplish, it becomes a "policy." Since policies are clearer and easier to communicate if written down, I’d create a document describing our policy. Since just saying it doesn't mean it will be so, and since "what gets measured gets done," I will establish some way of measuring how well we do at getting people to show up for work clear-headed. That effort has two parts:
- I would find a way to train myself and all our managers and supervisors on how to recognize the symptoms of substance abuse and on what treatment measures are available and where. I want to be smart enough to know how to monitor behavior and to know what to say if I see a problem developing, and I want to take action before things get out of hand. I would initiate a screening/testing program. I would test all potential new hires after making a conditional offer and I would withdraw the offer from anyone who, knowing he/she will be tested, shows positive for substance use. I believe this initial testing, even though the candidate probably knows when it will take place and could prepare for it, sends the right message immediately -- we maintain a drug-free workplace.
- Then, I would establish a system of unannounced, totally random testing that potentially calls every person in the company to submit to an immediate drug screening test.
The system would cover at least 30% of the employees in our company over the course of a year and would not call all those to be tested this year at the same time but, rather, would call one or two at random times. I would be prepared in advance to offer support and patience to any employee who tests positive, helping him/her find the means and opportunity to kick the habit or otherwise get back on track. I'd know what to suggest and be in a position to direct them to somebody or some organization that can help. I would create an outside contact person through whom I could monitor the employee's attempts to deal with the problem without that employee having to constantly report directly to me what may be very personal aspects of his/her treatment. I would terminate an employee for substance abuse only when it is clear that he/she is not continuing treatment or sustaining efforts to remain alcohol or drug-free.
That's it. That's what I would do. I would not routinely test after injury accidents because I wouldn't want the test to become a sanction that might shut down vital communication about why an accident happened or encourage people to not report one. I would not do scheduled, annual testing because there's little to be gained from allowing people to prepare for the test and then go back to abusing some substance until the next test period rolls around. I want to help those who have contributed to our company, not just toss them aside when they have a problem. I want to encourage them to stay clear headed at all times, not just once or twice each year. Of course, I want to be thorough and fair, so I (and all the management staff) will be subjected to the testing, too.
Editor’s Note #2: This is an opinion article. Some of you out there may have quite different opinions on this subject. So, let me hear from you. The goal of this newsletter is to share ideas that might help systems operate more safely. We don't claim to have all the ideas or answers. For instance, in some states there are seemingly valid cost reasons to do post accident testing. I'll gladly share anyone's reasonable ideas.