Alcohol and drug abuse is a major problem in the United States, responsible for about 100,000 deaths a year. It is estimated that about 14 million Americans, nearly 7% of adults, have a drinking problem, and about 8.1 million Americans are considered alcoholics. Employees under the influence of illicit drugs and/or alcohol are prone to such problems as absenteeism, injuries on the job, and mistakes in their work. Employees who have substance abuse problems take three times more sick days than other workers, resulting in a total of 500 million workdays lost annually. Get Off Drugs Today (855) 942-3433
Alcohol and drug abuse is a major problem in the United States, responsible for about 100,000 deaths a year. It is estimated that about 14 million Americans, nearly 7% of adults, have a drinking problem, and about 8.1 million Americans are considered alcoholics. Employees under the influence of illicit drugs and/or alcohol are prone to such problems as absenteeism, injuries on the job, and mistakes in their work. Employees who have substance abuse problems take three times more sick days than other workers, resulting in a total of 500 million workdays lost annually. [text_ad] For those involved in waste management, these mistakes and injuries pose a danger to the public. It is estimated that drug and alcohol abuse cost American business $81 million in lost productivity. Substance abuse is also responsible for up to 40% of industrial fatalities and about half of all industrial injuries. An Office of Applied Studies (OAS) report conducted in 1994 and again in 1997 analyzed the results from a survey that looked at the occupational differences of substance abuse. The survey looked at the occurrence of drug and alcohol abuse in different workplace environments, as well as the effectiveness of programs to curb its prevalence. While the OAS report did not specifically test the waste management industry, the information supplied for the industries of construction and material moving was considered to be similar to that for waste management industry. The material moving industry was used due to the fact that this most likely incorporated employees with commercial drivers licenses (CDLs) and jobs that had many similar performance requirements to those of construction and waste management. Toward the Drug-Free Workplace The substance abuse problem has been improving in the last decade. The OAS household survey from 1994 reported that 13.1% of people in the workplace used illicit substances in the last month. By 1997, that was down to 10.8%. So how were employers and employees able to combat this pressing issue? It appeared that the answer lay somewhere in the concept of a “Drug-Free Workplace,” a concept first coined by Ford Motor Company in 1914. The idea progressed, and the modern entity that is known as the Drug-Free Workplace was first introduced by President Reagan’s Drug Advisory Council in 1986. The components of the Drug-Free Workplace include: a written policy, access to assistance, employee education, supervisor training, and drug testing. By 1988 the Drug-free Workplace Act was put into law, mandating employers to administer drug tests to employees in “safety-sensitive” occupations. It also requires industries with more than $25,000 a year in federal business and that employ delivery, transportation, or other safety sensitive workers to obtain federal Drug-Free Workplace certification. Drug-Free Workplaces have been in existence since 1914, when Ford Motor Company instituted a profit-sharing program that penalized and suspended benefits to employees who failed to uphold the values that Ford held in high esteem, such as sobriety. Twenty-five years later, Kaiser shipyards took employee health to another level when they created an in-house health care system that boosted the malnourished and inadequate medical care that its Californian and Oregonian employees previously received. Other companies and industries soon recognized that employee health and well being and their influence on productivity. The concept evolved even further through agreements with organized labor and policy development. Now Drug-Free Workplaces are considered the norm, and the most successful programs have served as models for what is required of a Drug-Free Workplace. Since the 1988 Drug-Free Workplace Act, industries have sought many ways to decrease substance abuse among their employees. The effort has been aided by federal mandates, effective drug policies, the increasing popularity of Employee assistance programs (EAPs), and drug testing, which all have worked to curb the prevalence of substance abuse among industrial employees. One of the common threads among all the companies referred to in this article has been the implementation of a drug and alcohol policy, which has been very influential in creating drug-free workplaces. It is important that all employees are aware of their company’s policy. A comprehensive substance abuse policy should:
explain why drug and alcohol abuse is detrimental to the workplace environment,
provide information about the dangers of substance abuse,
spell out the type of assistance offered for substance abusers who voluntarily come forward,
spell out the roles, rights, and responsibilities of employees and supervisors under the drug policy,
describe the sanctions which apply to the violations of the policy, and
assure the personal privacy of attaining the goal of a Drug-Free Workplace.
It also outlines the provisions for training supervisors and, if there is drug testing, outlines the nature, the frequency, the type of testing, and what kind of drugs it will test for. In general, it seems that the basic knowledge of the drug policy creates a profound effect on the number of substance abusers in an industry. Glenn McGrath, the director of human resources for the Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA), emphasizes, “A well-developed Drug-Free Workplace policy that is clearly understood by all employees is a major deterrentŠ. I believe that our organizational message of zero tolerance for alcohol and drug abuse and informing employees about the employment consequences of violating our Drug-Free Workplace policy has the greatest impact in dealing with this problem.” The OAS report shows a strong statistical correlation between knowledge of a drug policy and the incidence of substance abuse in an industry. Specifically the material-moving industry shows an 83.3% rate of having a public policy. It’s also interesting to note that the size of the company has a profound impact on the likelihood of having a drug and alcohol policy – smaller firms are less likely to have a substance abuse policy and more likely to have a higher substance abuse rate. At a minimum, an effective drug policy will include the following:
A written policy statement
Supervisor training
Employee education and awareness
Employee assistance for providing help
Drug and alcohol testing
The Role of EAPs Alcohol and drug abuse is largely a cultural problem that is harvested in a work environment. According to Preventing Workplace Substance Abuse: Beyond Drug Testing to Wellness, a book published by the American Psychological Association and edited by Joel B. Bennett, Ph.D., and Wayne E. K. Lehman, Ph.D., “A growing body of literature implicates workplace culture and local employee social networks (‘drinking networks’) as playing a critical role in influencing misuse of alcohol (and, to some extent, illicit drug use).” It is vital that waste managers acknowledge this issue and use methods that work to combat this force instead of using a “quick fix” that largely ignores the underlying problem. It should be noted that drug testing alone is not responsible for a decline in substance abuse, and in fact there are no studies on the sole use of drug testing and its impact on substance abuse. Other trends, such as the growth of EAPs and stricter workplace policies and general declines in drug use, could also be responsible for the apparent decline in substance use. Combined with drug testing, these other factors lead to a comprehensive and effective substance abuse policy, and one of the most essential and widely adopted components is the EAP. There are as many EAPs in existence as there are variations in the services and resources that they supply. While having a substance abuse policy was shown to have a profound effect on the number of substance abusers in the company, the OAS report indicated that transportation and material moving still had a high substance abuse rate. This is in light of the fact that they ranked second to the protective services industry in having a substance abuse policy. The OAS report pointed out that the primary separation in industries with the highest rate of policy and the transportation and material-moving industry was their use of EAPs. From the OAS report it is clear that the main correlation arises from the availability of services from EAPs.Page Break Line
With this in mind, of all the attempts to curb substance abuse in the waste management industry, EAPs have been the most widely adopted, offering much more than just substance abuse counseling. Jim Warner, executive director of the Lancaster (PA) Solid Waste Authority, describes the services that their EAP offers to their employees as a “product they sell,” stating, “We buy sessions from Life Management Associates in Lancaster, which offers seven to eight blocks of sessions for each worker.” But the range of these services and who they are offered to demonstrates the flexibility and innovative spirit of EAPs. “These sessions can be used for anything ranging from substance abuse to marriage counseling and can be used by anyone in the employee’s family. The type of use of these blocks and who uses them remain confidential.” The goal of EAPs is to address the major problems that affect workplace productivity and the issues that might threaten job security. There are some EAPs that go so far as to help companies with other issues that cause productivity drainage, such as offering childcare and financial help – life issues that might affect workplace productivity. EAPs also might offer help to managers and supervisors to set up and develop training programs, trauma response, and other administrative programs that could further maximize the efficiency of the company. There are hundreds of EAPs in the US, and they offer many resources to their clients. Resources and issues of confidentiality differ from association to association. While the OAS report indicates that the transportation and material-moving industry is behind in adopting the services of EAPs, all of the waste managers interviewed for this article enlisted the help of EAPs. Each of the companies stressed the effectiveness of the EAPs, not just in their ability to help employees with substance abuse issues but also in their ability to help with other issues. According to Duncan Granger, senior program manager of employee assistance services for Life Management Associates, EAPs offer a wide variety of services. These services are not limited to substance abuse help, and in fact Life Management prides itself on offering crisis response team and large training programs, aside from the EAP. Most of the EAPs had a confidentiality policy, which allows employees to get help voluntarily with substance abuse. Some EAPs allow their services to extend to workers’ families. Others, such as the EAP for Dade County, FL, are voluntary services that observe behavior and offer an analysis from an internal psychologist and, if needed, can refer an employee to outside help. Shining a Spotlight on the Problem Drug testing is federally mandated and can be an effective tool for recognizing and assisting substance abusers. Under law, holders of CDLs are submitted to drug testing. Steve Cain, the head of human resources for the Public Works Department in Nashville, TN, stresses the importance of mandatory CDL drug testing: “In any job where the employee’s performance impacts public safety and whose actions can result in disastrous consequences, such as those who operate big equipment, CDL testing is critical in curbing this threat.” Many waste managers use only the guidelines offered by CDL and DOT regulations. The waste managers consulted consider this an effective method of curbing substance abuse. Martin Dareff, manager of vehicle services for Metropolitan Dade County, FL, explains, “We do not offer any other methods of testing aside from what is federally mandated by the Department of Transportation and required by CDLs. We feel that this is a sufficient method of testing that promotes our county’s zero-tolerance policy.” The CDL requires its drivers to be drug tested randomly, by reasonable suspicion, and by preappointment in accordance with the Omnibus Transportation Employee Act of 1991. New drivers are given a probationary status until their test results come back negative. The probationary status prohibits the drivers from performing any safety-sensitive function. Drivers can be subjected to a drug test at any time and, by mandate under the CDL, are required to comply. The drivers are also given drug tests if at any time they demonstrate conditions that might indicate a reasonable suspicion:
Abnormally dilated or constricted pupils
Slowed reaction rate
Glazed stare, redness of eyes
Dulled mental process
Excessive and unexplained absences
Flushed face
Change in speech
Difficulty walking
Constant sniffing
Slurred speech
Increased absences
Smell of alcohol
Constant fatigue or hyperactivity
Redness under nose
Sudden weight loss
Needle marks
Change in personality
Increased appetite for sweets
Forgetfulness
Performance faltering
Poor concentration
Borrowing money from coworkers or seeking an advance or any other unusual display of need for money
Closing the Barn Door Post accident testing also is required in the case of an accident, which is defined as an accident that results in the death of a human being; results in bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury, immediately received medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or results in one or more of the involved vehicles being towed from the scene. The drivers are also subjected to return-to-duty testing and follow-up testing. Many people within the waste management industry feel that this is enough to prevent substance abuse among its employees. Many companies in fact do not have any other substance abuse policy aside from the CDL and DOT mandatory random testing, as well as postaccident testing. SPSA’s McGrath points out that, by using these policies, they were able to cover not only holders of CDLs but their supervisors. “Per our policy, employees and supervisors who are in safety-sensitive positions or in positions covered by DOT regulations are subject to random tests.” While there isn’t significant data on the effectiveness of using just the CDL testing, the waste managers spoken to claimed that the policy was successful and worked to have a zero positive test rate in some cases. Nashville’s Cain speculates that preappointment testing is an important factor in the success of his department’s Drug-Free Workplace. “When we started preappointment testing for safety-sensitive occupations back in 1996, we were above the national average [for employees who tested positive for drugs]. Since then we have improved well beyond the national average [1% compared to a national average of 3.1%].” Even though public works only use pre-appointment testing for those employees in the most dangerous of occupations, he theorizes that “Ša lot of our success is due to the rumor that we preappointment test all our workers.” This speculation is backed by the OAS study showing that companies are less likely to have employees with substance abuse problems if they use some sort of drug testing. Random, reasonable suspicion, and postaccident drug testing are all effective ways to curb substance abuse in the waste management industry. While preappointment drug testing seems to be an effective way of avoiding employees that might have substance abuse problems, the OAS report indicates that the percentage of employees who would be less likely to work for an employer who tested upon suspicion in the transportation and material-moving occupations dropped significantly between 1994 and 1997, from 22% to 8%. What does this indicate about the change in workplace environment in the waste management industry? As Cain suggests, the suspicion that employers preappointment test all employees keeps away those who might have substance abuse problems.
Are Substance Abuse Programs Properly Focused? Can a drug policy be truly effective if it exempts supervisors and mangers from testing? The same OAS study showed that people with higher incomes ($40,000$79,000+) showed little significant difference in substance abuse rates (9.3%). The study shows that while substance abuse is less common in managerial positions, where found it usually involves more high-risk drugs. Drugs such as cocaine are more common among managerial employees and higher-ranking officials. While supervisors and managers are not directly involved with jobs that impact public safety, they are responsible for monitoring and organizing those who are directly involved with public safety. McGrath points out that the testing conducted based on CDL and DOT requirements only tests managers that are in safety-sensitive positions or who are covered by the DOT regulations, “Samples from the random testing pool are conducted on a monthly basis and include employees and supervisory employees. All other employees, including supervisors and managers, are subject to ‘for cause’ and preemployment testing per the policy requirements.” There is little in the way of research available delving into the impact of upper-level employee substance abuse on a company’s overall performance. Is there a double standard here, and is it intentional? If so, does it in effect negate the idea behind the Drug-Free Workplace? According to Preventing Workplace Substance Abuse, there seems to be a tendency by employers to be shortsighted and ignore the problem at large. Often companies focus simply on showing that they comply with federal regulations. This is a pressing issue for larger companies who might employ too large a number to address the underlying solution and opt for the more direct and cost-efficient method of eliminating substance abusers. Stick or Carrot? Many EAPs are wary of suggesting specific modes of disciplinary action because of liability issues. Life Management’s Granger states that, while his company does not offer any suggestions for disciplinary action, “we do suggest that they consult an attorney for the proper course of action if someone does test positive.” Disciplinary actions vary from company to company but most frequently consist of suspension or immediate termination. Dade County’s policy, for example, imposes a suspension upon first offense and then termination upon second offense. SPSA offers employees with substance abuse problems the opportunity to receive help from the EAP as long as they haven’t performed any work-related activities under the influence. “We have a zero-tolerance policy and once a person tests positive for drugs, he or she is terminated. They might seek treatment, but that will not prevent them from being terminated. We do encourage employees with substance abuse issues to seek help through the EAP, but they must do so without putting the organization at risk by working in violation of our policy,” claims McGrath. In the end, there is no perfect solution for eliminating substance abuse in waste management, but finding the right balance between policy, testing, and counseling appears to be the most effective way. The importance of EAPs is vital to any organization, but appears to be less of a force in larger organizations that, due to cost considerations, appear to rely on drug testing to supply incentive. EAPs tend to carry a larger weight in smaller organizations where their influence is greater among workplace culture. So is there a substance abuse problem in the waste management industry? According to the overwhelming majority of those whom we interviewed, it would seem not. As SPSA’s McGrath points out, compared to other industries similar to waste management, there appears to be “no more a problem [than] in industries with [a] similar mix of employees. We do find that there is a very low incident among our CDL drivers.” Thus it appears that already there are safeguards in place that keep the waste management industry below the national average for substance abuse, but as McGrath also states, “It is important to understand that any rate is unsatisfactory when working in a heavy industrial environment such as ours and where the operation of commercial vehicles is involved.”
For those involved in waste management, these mistakes and injuries pose a danger to the public. It is estimated that drug and alcohol abuse cost American business $81 million in lost productivity. Substance abuse is also responsible for up to 40% of industrial fatalities and about half of all industrial injuries.
An Office of Applied Studies (OAS) report conducted in 1994 and again in 1997 analyzed the results from a survey that looked at the occupational differences of substance abuse. The survey looked at the occurrence of drug and alcohol abuse in different workplace environments, as well as the effectiveness of programs to curb its prevalence. While the OAS report did not specifically test the waste management industry, the information supplied for the industries of construction and material moving was considered to be similar to that for waste management industry. The material moving industry was used due to the fact that this most likely incorporated employees with commercial drivers licenses (CDLs) and jobs that had many similar performance requirements to those of construction and waste management.
Toward the Drug-Free Workplace
The substance abuse problem has been improving in the last decade. The OAS household survey from 1994 reported that 13.1% of people in the workplace used illicit substances in the last month. By 1997, that was down to 10.8%. So how were employers and employees able to combat this pressing issue? It appeared that the answer lay somewhere in the concept of a “Drug-Free Workplace,” a concept first coined by Ford Motor Company in 1914. The idea progressed, and the modern entity that is known as the Drug-Free Workplace was first introduced by President Reagan’s Drug Advisory Council in 1986. The components of the Drug-Free Workplace include: a written policy, access to assistance, employee education, supervisor training, and drug testing. By 1988 the Drug-free Workplace Act was put into law, mandating employers to administer drug tests to employees in “safety-sensitive” occupations. It also requires industries with more than $25,000 a year in federal business and that employ delivery, transportation, or other safety sensitive workers to obtain federal Drug-Free Workplace certification.
Drug-Free Workplaces have been in existence since 1914, when Ford Motor Company instituted a profit-sharing program that penalized and suspended benefits to employees who failed to uphold the values that Ford held in high esteem, such as sobriety. Twenty-five years later, Kaiser shipyards took employee health to another level when they created an in-house health care system that boosted the malnourished and inadequate medical care that its Californian and Oregonian employees previously received. Other companies and industries soon recognized that employee health and well being and their influence on productivity. The concept evolved even further through agreements with organized labor and policy development. Now Drug-Free Workplaces are considered the norm, and the most successful programs have served as models for what is required of a Drug-Free Workplace. Since the 1988 Drug-Free Workplace Act, industries have sought many ways to decrease substance abuse among their employees. The effort has been aided by federal mandates, effective drug policies, the increasing popularity of Employee assistance programs (EAPs), and drug testing, which all have worked to curb the prevalence of substance abuse among industrial employees.
One of the common threads among all the companies referred to in this article has been the implementation of a drug and alcohol policy, which has been very influential in creating drug-free workplaces. It is important that all employees are aware of their company’s policy. A comprehensive substance abuse policy should:
explain why drug and alcohol abuse is detrimental to the workplace environment,
provide information about the dangers of substance abuse,
spell out the type of assistance offered for substance abusers who voluntarily come forward,
spell out the roles, rights, and responsibilities of employees and supervisors under the drug policy,
describe the sanctions which apply to the violations of the policy, and
assure the personal privacy of attaining the goal of a Drug-Free Workplace.
It also outlines the provisions for training supervisors and, if there is drug testing, outlines the nature, the frequency, the type of testing, and what kind of drugs it will test for.
In general, it seems that the basic knowledge of the drug policy creates a profound effect on the number of substance abusers in an industry. Glenn McGrath, the director of human resources for the Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA), emphasizes, “A well-developed Drug-Free Workplace policy that is clearly understood by all employees is a major deterrentŠ. I believe that our organizational message of zero tolerance for alcohol and drug abuse and informing employees about the employment consequences of violating our Drug-Free Workplace policy has the greatest impact in dealing with this problem.” The OAS report shows a strong statistical correlation between knowledge of a drug policy and the incidence of substance abuse in an industry. Specifically the material-moving industry shows an 83.3% rate of having a public policy. It’s also interesting to note that the size of the company has a profound impact on the likelihood of having a drug and alcohol policy – smaller firms are less likely to have a substance abuse policy and more likely to have a higher substance abuse rate. At a minimum, an effective drug policy will include the following:
A written policy statement
Supervisor training
Employee education and awareness
Employee assistance for providing help
Drug and alcohol testing
The Role of EAPs
Alcohol and drug abuse is largely a cultural problem that is harvested in a work environment. According to Preventing Workplace Substance Abuse: Beyond Drug Testing to Wellness, a book published by the American Psychological Association and edited by Joel B. Bennett, Ph.D., and Wayne E. K. Lehman, Ph.D., “A growing body of literature implicates workplace culture and local employee social networks (‘drinking networks’) as playing a critical role in influencing misuse of alcohol (and, to some extent, illicit drug use).” It is vital that waste managers acknowledge this issue and use methods that work to combat this force instead of using a “quick fix” that largely ignores the underlying problem.
It should be noted that drug testing alone is not responsible for a decline in substance abuse, and in fact there are no studies on the sole use of drug testing and its impact on substance abuse. Other trends, such as the growth of EAPs and stricter workplace policies and general declines in drug use, could also be responsible for the apparent decline in substance use. Combined with drug testing, these other factors lead to a comprehensive and effective substance abuse policy, and one of the most essential and widely adopted components is the EAP. There are as many EAPs in existence as there are variations in the services and resources that they supply. While having a substance abuse policy was shown to have a profound effect on the number of substance abusers in the company, the OAS report indicated that transportation and material moving still had a high substance abuse rate. This is in light of the fact that they ranked second to the protective services industry in having a substance abuse policy. The OAS report pointed out that the primary separation in industries with the highest rate of policy and the transportation and material-moving industry was their use of EAPs. From the OAS report it is clear that the main correlation arises from the availability of services from EAPs.Page Break Line
With this in mind, of all the attempts to curb substance abuse in the waste management industry, EAPs have been the most widely adopted, offering much more than just substance abuse counseling. Jim Warner, executive director of the Lancaster (PA) Solid Waste Authority, describes the services that their EAP offers to their employees as a “product they sell,” stating, “We buy sessions from Life Management Associates in Lancaster, which offers seven to eight blocks of sessions for each worker.” But the range of these services and who they are offered to demonstrates the flexibility and innovative spirit of EAPs. “These sessions can be used for anything ranging from substance abuse to marriage counseling and can be used by anyone in the employee’s family. The type of use of these blocks and who uses them remain confidential.” The goal of EAPs is to address the major problems that affect workplace productivity and the issues that might threaten job security. There are some EAPs that go so far as to help companies with other issues that cause productivity drainage, such as offering childcare and financial help – life issues that might affect workplace productivity. EAPs also might offer help to managers and supervisors to set up and develop training programs, trauma response, and other administrative programs that could further maximize the efficiency of the company. There are hundreds of EAPs in the US, and they offer many resources to their clients. Resources and issues of confidentiality differ from association to association.
While the OAS report indicates that the transportation and material-moving industry is behind in adopting the services of EAPs, all of the waste managers interviewed for this article enlisted the help of EAPs. Each of the companies stressed the effectiveness of the EAPs, not just in their ability to help employees with substance abuse issues but also in their ability to help with other issues. According to Duncan Granger, senior program manager of employee assistance services for Life Management Associates, EAPs offer a wide variety of services. These services are not limited to substance abuse help, and in fact Life Management prides itself on offering crisis response team and large training programs, aside from the EAP. Most of the EAPs had a confidentiality policy, which allows employees to get help voluntarily with substance abuse. Some EAPs allow their services to extend to workers’ families. Others, such as the EAP for Dade County, FL, are voluntary services that observe behavior and offer an analysis from an internal psychologist and, if needed, can refer an employee to outside help.
Shining a Spotlight on the Problem
Drug testing is federally mandated and can be an effective tool for recognizing and assisting substance abusers. Under law, holders of CDLs are submitted to drug testing. Steve Cain, the head of human resources for the Public Works Department in Nashville, TN, stresses the importance of mandatory CDL drug testing: “In any job where the employee’s performance impacts public safety and whose actions can result in disastrous consequences, such as those who operate big equipment, CDL testing is critical in curbing this threat.” Many waste managers use only the guidelines offered by CDL and DOT regulations. The waste managers consulted consider this an effective method of curbing substance abuse. Martin Dareff, manager of vehicle services for Metropolitan Dade County, FL, explains, “We do not offer any other methods of testing aside from what is federally mandated by the Department of Transportation and required by CDLs. We feel that this is a sufficient method of testing that promotes our county’s zero-tolerance policy.”
The CDL requires its drivers to be drug tested randomly, by reasonable suspicion, and by preappointment in accordance with the Omnibus Transportation Employee Act of 1991. New drivers are given a probationary status until their test results come back negative. The probationary status prohibits the drivers from performing any safety-sensitive function. Drivers can be subjected to a drug test at any time and, by mandate under the CDL, are required to comply. The drivers are also given drug tests if at any time they demonstrate conditions that might indicate a reasonable suspicion:
Abnormally dilated or constricted pupils
Slowed reaction rate
Glazed stare, redness of eyes
Dulled mental process
Excessive and unexplained absences
Flushed face
Change in speech
Difficulty walking
Constant sniffing
Slurred speech
Increased absences
Smell of alcohol
Constant fatigue or hyperactivity
Redness under nose
Sudden weight loss
Needle marks
Change in personality
Increased appetite for sweets
Forgetfulness
Performance faltering
Poor concentration
Borrowing money from coworkers or seeking an advance or any other unusual display of need for money
Closing the Barn Door
Post accident testing also is required in the case of an accident, which is defined as an accident that results in the death of a human being; results in bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury, immediately received medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or results in one or more of the involved vehicles being towed from the scene. The drivers are also subjected to return-to-duty testing and follow-up testing. Many people within the waste management industry feel that this is enough to prevent substance abuse among its employees. Many companies in fact do not have any other substance abuse policy aside from the CDL and DOT mandatory random testing, as well as postaccident testing. SPSA’s McGrath points out that, by using these policies, they were able to cover not only holders of CDLs but their supervisors. “Per our policy, employees and supervisors who are in safety-sensitive positions or in positions covered by DOT regulations are subject to random tests.” While there isn’t significant data on the effectiveness of using just the CDL testing, the waste managers spoken to claimed that the policy was successful and worked to have a zero positive test rate in some cases.
Nashville’s Cain speculates that preappointment testing is an important factor in the success of his department’s Drug-Free Workplace. “When we started preappointment testing for safety-sensitive occupations back in 1996, we were above the national average [for employees who tested positive for drugs]. Since then we have improved well beyond the national average [1% compared to a national average of 3.1%].” Even though public works only use pre-appointment testing for those employees in the most dangerous of occupations, he theorizes that “Ša lot of our success is due to the rumor that we preappointment test all our workers.” This speculation is backed by the OAS study showing that companies are less likely to have employees with substance abuse problems if they use some sort of drug testing. Random, reasonable suspicion, and postaccident drug testing are all effective ways to curb substance abuse in the waste management industry.
While preappointment drug testing seems to be an effective way of avoiding employees that might have substance abuse problems, the OAS report indicates that the percentage of employees who would be less likely to work for an employer who tested upon suspicion in the transportation and material-moving occupations dropped significantly between 1994 and 1997, from 22% to 8%. What does this indicate about the change in workplace environment in the waste management industry? As Cain suggests, the suspicion that employers preappointment test all employees keeps away those who might have substance abuse problems.Page Break Line
Are Substance Abuse Programs Properly Focused?
Can a drug policy be truly effective if it exempts supervisors and mangers from testing? The same OAS study showed that people with higher incomes ($40,000$79,000+) showed little significant difference in substance abuse rates (9.3%). The study shows that while substance abuse is less common in managerial positions, where found it usually involves more high-risk drugs. Drugs such as cocaine are more common among managerial employees and higher-ranking officials. While supervisors and managers are not directly involved with jobs that impact public safety, they are responsible for monitoring and organizing those who are directly involved with public safety. McGrath points out that the testing conducted based on CDL and DOT requirements only tests managers that are in safety-sensitive positions or who are covered by the DOT regulations, “Samples from the random testing pool are conducted on a monthly basis and include employees and supervisory employees. All other employees, including supervisors and managers, are subject to ‘for cause’ and preemployment testing per the policy requirements.”
There is little in the way of research available delving into the impact of upper-level employee substance abuse on a company’s overall performance. Is there a double standard here, and is it intentional? If so, does it in effect negate the idea behind the Drug-Free Workplace? According to Preventing Workplace Substance Abuse, there seems to be a tendency by employers to be shortsighted and ignore the problem at large. Often companies focus simply on showing that they comply with federal regulations. This is a pressing issue for larger companies who might employ too large a number to address the underlying solution and opt for the more direct and cost-efficient method of eliminating substance abusers.
Stick or Carrot?
Many EAPs are wary of suggesting specific modes of disciplinary action because of liability issues. Life Management’s Granger states that, while his company does not offer any suggestions for disciplinary action, “we do suggest that they consult an attorney for the proper course of action if someone does test positive.”
Disciplinary actions vary from company to company but most frequently consist of suspension or immediate termination. Dade County’s policy, for example, imposes a suspension upon first offense and then termination upon second offense. SPSA offers employees with substance abuse problems the opportunity to receive help from the EAP as long as they haven’t performed any work-related activities under the influence. “We have a zero-tolerance policy and once a person tests positive for drugs, he or she is terminated. They might seek treatment, but that will not prevent them from being terminated. We do encourage employees with substance abuse issues to seek help through the EAP, but they must do so without putting the organization at risk by working in violation of our policy,” claims McGrath.
In the end, there is no perfect solution for eliminating substance abuse in waste management, but finding the right balance between policy, testing, and counseling appears to be the most effective way. The importance of EAPs is vital to any organization, but appears to be less of a force in larger organizations that, due to cost considerations, appear to rely on drug testing to supply incentive. EAPs tend to carry a larger weight in smaller organizations where their influence is greater among workplace culture.
So is there a substance abuse problem in the waste management industry? According to the overwhelming majority of those whom we interviewed, it would seem not. As SPSA’s McGrath points out, compared to other industries similar to waste management, there appears to be “no more a problem [than] in industries with [a] similar mix of employees. We do find that there is a very low incident among our CDL drivers.” Thus it appears that already there are safeguards in place that keep the waste management industry below the national average for substance abuse, but as McGrath also states, “It is important to understand that any rate is unsatisfactory when working in a heavy industrial environment such as ours and where the operation of commercial vehicles is involved.”
Address: Akron, Ohio Website:https://getoffdrugsakron.com/ Phone: (855) 942-3433