Does workplace alcohol and other drug testing work?
Not all workplaces need drug testing and it’s important to understand what it can and can’t do. There is very little good quality evidence that testing improves workplace safety or reduces drug use. Testing may have a deterrent effect. It may also have the effect of shifting use to other types of drugs – typically those not tested for – without actually decreasing the overall use of drugs in the workforce.
In some sectors of the workforce, such as some Australian government funded construction sites, alcohol and other drug testing is mandated.
Workplaces considering the introduction of testing need to consider the practice carefully.
How is alcohol and other drug testing conducted?
There are several different types of workplace alcohol and other drug testing practices, most commonly:
- Breath testing for alcohol
- Saliva testing for drug use
- Urine testing for drug use
Less common are hair follicle testing and blood analysis.
Saliva testing generally has a shorter detection window than other tests, but can still pick up drugs that have been used within at least the last 24 hours.
What can alcohol and other drug testing tell us?
Whether illicit or medically prescribed, using drugs may cause impairment, but no workplace drug tests are able to detect intoxication or impairment other than alcohol breathalyser tests.
Unlike other drug tests, alcohol breathalyser tests reliably identify a person’s current blood alcohol level. Although impairment varies between people at the same blood alcohol level, it is reasonable to assume that with a positive breathalyser test result, the person is at least somewhat impaired.
A positive drug test cannot determine whether a person is intoxicated or impaired, nor when they used the drug, how much they used, or the frequency that they use it.
Sometimes, a person may return a positive test for a drug that they had consumed weeks prior to taking the test, long after any potentially impairing effects of the drug have worn off.
A negative test indicates that a person is probably not impaired from drugs (at least for those drugs that are tested), but a positive test does not necessarily indicate that they are impaired. Most onsite urine tests will detect drugs up to 72 hours after they have been consumed. Given the short half life of most drugs, after three days the person tested will no longer be intoxicated or impaired.
There is very limited high quality evidence that drug testing reduces drug use or harms in the workplace.
The strongest argument for testing is for immediate safety – by ensuring only people who do not have drugs in their system are allowed on to worksites, risk of accidents is likely to decrease. This has some merit, but there are important things to consider:
- Workers who test positive may not be impaired and have most likely been using in their own personal time
- Workers may use other drugs that cause impairment but are not part of the testing regime
- Workers can be impaired from other factors such as fatigue and mental health problems
- A range of environmental risk factors also contribute to accident and injury risk, including heat and noise
To ensure these issues are effectively dealt with, alcohol and other drug policies need to be part of a broader healthy workplace solution that considers how to assess for fitness for work and impairment rather than focusing specifically on drug use.
Ensuring managers, team leaders and supervisors are able to recognise impairment, and have the skills to respond effectively, is more likely to reduce a range of impairment related problems in the workplace than relying on drug testing alone.
Where does testing fit into evidence based policy?
There is no valid rationale to support workplace drug testing in employees whose potential alcohol or drug use presents no risk to workplace health and safety. In such workplaces, productivity concerns can be effectively managed through a workplace drug and alcohol policy or fitness for work policy without unnecessarily impinging on employees’ rights to privacy.
For workers employed in safety sensitive or integrity based (such as policing) roles only, drug testing may be justified as a mechanism to address an explicit risk to the integrity, health or safety of employees.
When a workplace introduces alcohol and other drug testing, the testing regime should form just one component of a comprehensive response focusing on whole of workforce safety and wellbeing.
Written policies, training programs, and access to counselling for workers who need it have been found to have a positive impact on alcohol and other drug use and reduce workplace injury. These strategies should always be established in conjunction with testing.
Efforts to introduce testing should involve input from workers into the development and implementation of testing processes, and should be perceived by workers as an appropriately targeted and justified strategy to manage identified risk and improve workplace safety. Identification of risk will emerge from the initial needs analysis.
Introducing drug testing requires careful planning:
- Conducting meaningful consultations with workers on an ongoing basis, including before testing is introduced
- Adopting the least invasive and timely testing method possible
- Complying with current Australian testing standards
- Enacting a testing policy that is fair, equitable, and suits the needs of the workplace
- Training managers, team leaders, and supervisors in recognising signs of impairment and responding
- Disseminating information about the testing policy and procedure
- Encouraging workers who return a positive result to access support or professional help if required
Random, blanket, or impairment testing?
Random testing is conducted on a selection of workers on a random day. It is designed to detect use of alcohol and other drugs among the workforce on a given day. Equitable systems to identify target workers are crucial to ensure they do not feel singled out for testing.
Blanket or 100% testing tests all workers or contractors going on to a worksite.
This type of testing is sometimes used in safety sensitive industries such as mining, as a mechanism to ensure anyone entering a worksite is unlikely to be impaired from the use of alcohol and other drugs.
Impairment testing is used when there is a reasonable suspicion that someone is affected by alcohol or other drugs. This is also known as ‘for cause’ testing. When an effective impairment policy is in place, impairment testing does not generally provide any additional information to assist with immediate action.
Testing may also be conducted as a condition of pre-employment; on a worker or workers following a workplace accident or near miss; and on a voluntary basis for workers to ‘self check’.
Myths about alcohol and other drug testing
Myth #1: Testing identifies most workers who use alcohol and other drugs
Research tells us that workplace while testing may be able to identify workers who use alcohol and other drugs frequently, most workers who use drugs do so irregularly. If detection is the primary goal, most will fly under the radar.
Myth #2: A positive test identifies workers or contractors who are intoxicated and therefore unfit for work
Research tells us that tests for drug use do not provide a good measure of impairment or lack of fitness for work in real time. A positive test shows that the worker has used drugs at some time but does not indicate the extent of a worker’s current impairment or when the drug was used – it could have been days, weeks, or even months ago.
On the other hand, alcohol breath testing does detect the level of alcohol in the person’s system in real time and is a much more reliable indicator of impairment, which may be in line with the person’s blood alcohol content reading.
So, for drugs other than alcohol, testing indicates that someone is probably not impaired from drugs when a negative result is returned, but a positive test result also doesn’t necessarily indicate that the person is currently impaired.
Myth #3: Testing deters workers from using alcohol and other drugs and makes workplaces safe
The evidence for the effectiveness of workplace testing to deter use and improve workplace safety is weak.
Does my workplace need alcohol and other drug testing?
There is a belief in some workplaces that alcohol and other drug testing is integral to an effective alcohol and other drug workplace policy, but this is not the case.
Workplace policies that meet best practice standards generally don’t require a testing component, although some safety sensitive industries do include testing in an effort to manage safety concerns identified through robust needs and risk analyses.
In some cases, legislative provisions are such that alcohol and other drug testing is introduced to manage workplace and community safety in industries such as railway, road, and aviation transport. The construction industry is also required by law to mandate testing when some Australian Government contracts are involved.
Because it cannot definitively indicate impairment or fitness for work, testing can only be justified on health and safety grounds. Workplaces need to ensure that they have a legitimate safety reason for introducing testing.
For most workplaces, a policy that promotes the safety and wellbeing of the workforce with a fitness for work focus and referral pathways for those who require assistance is extremely effective without the need for workplace alcohol and other drug testing. An effective policy without a testing component also avoids issues related to the intrusiveness of testing that has been challenged and often upheld by the legal system. Testing can also be costly.
In some cases, introducing alcohol and other drug testing into a workplace may cause more trouble than it is worth, so consider the implications very carefully and consult widely before a decision is made. The need for testing should be based on findings from a robust needs and risk assessment.
In general, workplaces that are not safety sensitive should start with a strong policy and detailed procedures that focuses on whole of workforce wellbeing and fitness for work in the first instance, providing formalised links to an EAP or an external professional health support network for workers adversely affected by alcohol and other drug use.
How we can help
WorkEdge is our workplace policy program. You can be confident in the results you will achieve with WorkEdge because it is backed by the latest scientific evidence.
Our leading experts in alcohol and other drug matters – including evidence based prevention, treatment, and harm reduction – are here to ensure that your organisation complies with its legal and duty of care obligations while promoting a workplace culture that values the safety and wellbeing of all.
If your organisation is looking to develop or modernise its alcohol and other drug policy, get in touch at workedge@360edge.com.au or on 1300 988 184 for a free and confidential discussion.
