|
Today's
Exposure:
Many years ago, as the
problem of substance abuse became recognized as a major hazard in
the North American workplace, many businesses began including drug
screens as a part of their regular pre-employment physical
examinations. For a period, this seemed to be an effective
countermeasure. However, as such screening became more common,
addicts and casual users came to realize that passing such tests
would be necessary to obtain employment. Today, many habitual
drug users can beat these tests--or abstain from drug use just long
enough to legitimately clear these drug scans. As we approach
the turn of the century, the effectiveness of drug tests is
questionable at best, and often paper and pencil psychological
profiling techniques prove more effective.
Proprietary Anti-Drug
Programs:
At most large facilities in
the U.S., on-the-job drug use is an continuing problem. Well
run businesses today all have substance abuse programs where
employees with problems can voluntarily seek assistance without
fearing negative repercussions. Some businesses even offer
assistance to family members of employees under the theory that
employees with such problems at home cannot be as effective at work
as they would if these problems could be eliminated.. Even in
unionized environments where there may be disagreements with other
policy, this is usually an area of common concern. Usually,
neither business nor union management will tolerate an environment
for workers that is made hazardous because of substance abuse.
In many cases, the vast majority of the hourly workers are aware of
the identity of users and sellers of illicit drugs, but most will
not come forward and identify the problems, even where there is a
means to do so anonymously.
Common Drug Program
Deficiencies:
In addition to the fact the
true value of applicant drug screening is questionable, other
problems often exist in different phases of drug programs or
policies. Often, companies adopted generic policies
recommended by theorists or well-meaning insurance loss control
representatives with little knowledge of real world business.
These policies have seldom been reevaluated to determine their
effectiveness. For example one large warehousing complex had a
cut and dry policy that any fork lift operator involved in any
accident, no matter how minor, was sent for a drug test and
prohibited from operating a fork lift until the results were
returned. Management enforced this policy vigorously, and
operators who nudged an empty box while making a tricky turn would
be sent out for a test. Results of these tests were not
generally available for three to five days, causing critical
shortages of qualified fork lift drivers and putting a burden on
already overworked crews. After three years (at the suggestion
of an undercover investigator) management reviewed the policy and
found that absolutely none of the operators, who had been tested
during this period, had failed the test and that no injury accidents
had occurred during this period. By changing its policy to
require drug tests only after accidents involving damage or injury,
logic was restored, money was saved and stress, caused by a regular
shortage of drivers, was relieved.
L.P.C., Ltd. Assistance In
Minimizing Substance Abuse Problems:
While this service is
categorized under our consulting heading, it is actually a
combination of consulting and investigation. Our approach is
completely different than other security and investigation firms
which often |
|
