Workplace drug testing and the detox industry
by Kenneth D Tunnell
[ opinion - may 04 ]
Before drug testing swept through the American workplace, it was first imposed on those who, at least theoretically, already had relinquished some of their personal liberties - members of the armed forces and jail and prison inmates. Once the military began testing its personnel, it did so in a big way conducting over a million urine screenings each year since 1981. Military test results indicate significant decreases in positive findings - from 4.67 in 1981 to .69 in recent years. About 71 per cent of jails have established drug testing policies and procedures. Nationally, about 49 per cent of adult probationers are subject to routine drug screening. Typical for this current version of the war on drugs, only 17 per cent of adult probationers receive any drug treatment services.
The drug testing industry advanced its financial growth by working to expand testing to individuals occupying diverse settings and who beforehand were exempt from such intrusions. Workers and job applicants were the main targets. Students have been as well, although to lesser extent. The drug testing industry grew nearly exponentially because of its aggressive marketing strategies and the simultaneous public campaigns of politicians, office seekers and moral entrepreneurs and is today, a multi-billion dollar industry.
Key decisions in the Executive branch and by the US Supreme Court cleared the way for wholesale adoption of workplace drug testing. Without governmental mandates and initiatives, however, it is a safe assumption that drug testing would not have reached current levels. But, with industry lobbying and the federal government's coercion of particular industries, states passed legislation to create drug-free workplaces and to afford employers with opportunities to maximize productivity levels, enhance their competitive locations in the marketplace and attain their projected degrees of success. As part of government's coercive measures, most states offer financial incentives to employers who participate in workplace drug-testing. For example, some states allow employers credits on their workers' insurance policies. Others support employers through public policies. When employers discharge or discipline employees who are in violation of drug-free workplace programs, it is defined as reasonable and "for cause." Furthermore, states have shifted the legal burden of proof from employers to employees who are injured on the job and whose post-accident drug screening indicates positive results. Thus, employers have financial motivation directly from their states of residence for implementing drug-free workplace programs. A recent American Management Association survey indicates that of companies subjecting employees to drug testing, 53 per cent reportedly do so because of government mandates and incentives.
According to data on companies that test employees, drug testing increased from 21.5 per cent of companies testing employees in 1987 to 84.8 per cent of companies testing employees in 1993 - a 250 per cent increase. Recent evidence suggests that drug testing has now leveled off and in fact has decreased slightly, but primarily among small businesses. National data indicate that 66 per cent of the country's largest firms engage in some type of drug testing. Among Fortune 500 companies, during the late 1980s and early 1990s, drug testing likewise increased in use. For example, in 1985 about 18 per cent of Fortune 500 companies tested their employees. The number increased to a high point of 40 per cent by 1991. Among Fortune 1000 firms, 48 per cent of employees are subject to drug testing.
Recent data also indicate that the larger the company, the more likely to impose drug testing on applicants and employees. About 71 per cent of work sites with more than 1,000 employees conduct drug tests while 40 per cent of work sites with 50 to 99 employees screen for drugs. Among companies with fewer than 50 employees, only two per cent require drug testing.
Drug testing prevalence varies widely across industry type. Blue collar workers are much more likely to be subject to drug testing than white collar employees. Workers most likely subject to drug and alcohol screening are non-college educated males who are full-time employees and union members. Drug testing varies by geographic region as well, with the Southern United States reportedly conducting more drug testing than any other area in the country. Social class and income are inversely related to drug testing; working class members with the lowest incomes are those most likely tested. Workers are most typically subject to random tests. Those most frequently subjected to drug tests are job applicants who must comply before landing a job. Most drug testing programs require the worker or applicant, in the presence of a monitor, to pee into a specimen cup.
Although managers and executives allege that testing programs are effective mechanisms for improving productivity and workplace health and safety, there is little empirical support for their claims. The most recent research indicates that drug testing programs do not improve productivity and that companies adopting testing programs have lower levels of productivity than those that forego them. On the other hand, recent data indicate that workplace drug testing programs reduce injuries and workers' compensation claims.
The main impetus for drug testing programs initially (and still to some extent) seemingly was politics, rhetoric and government mandates and rewards. Today, however, given the pervasiveness of drug testing, corporations regard it as simply a normal and functional contemporary business practice. Since most companies use screening methods, corporate executives report that they feel obliged to follow suit, fearing that workers desiring to avoid drug testing at particular companies likely would gravitate to non-testing firms.
The drug testing industry is the quintessential example of modernity. Its profound faith in technology; its underlying philosophy of surveillance; its ability to rapidly process large numbers of urine samples; and its confidence in science as a means of social control, each suggests modern strategies and ideologies for addressing complex social issues. The drug testing industry is highly profitable and contributes markedly to the national economy. One latent consequence of this industry's emergence is its impact on the rise of its antithesis - a fragmented detox industry composed of several companies manufacturing products designed to generate false negative test results.
The Detox industry
The Detox industry is composed of a consortium of companies each offering numerous yet similar commodities. No matter the product, each is designed, at least theoretically, to produce a false negative drug test result (i.e., the non-detection of drugs despite their presence). There essentially are two types of detox company: one that markets its products with only subtle mention of producing a false negative result and another that makes overt claims about its products' intended purpose of subverting drug tests. The former, however, clearly dominates the market in advertising, in shelf space in retail shops and in sales. Its presence is far more visible within traditional shopping venues. Its products are sold largely in retail shops. Companies making overt claims most commonly move their products from their internet web sites.
Several companies manufacture a wide assortment of detox products and sell them by using less obvious language than those companies that make conspicuous claims about their products and purpose. Those firms comprising the subtle variety include: Freedom Wholesalers in Mesa, Arizona; Houston International of Tempe, Arizona; Sarken, Inc. of Tempe, Arizona; Herbal Clean of Dublin, Ohio; Vale Enterprises of Denver, Colorado; One Source of Lake Bluff, Illinois; and Clear Choice (Health Tech) of Alpharetta, Georgia. These and a few others like them market similar items with parallel claims of efficacy. Products include: herbal teas that detox in two hours; pills that detox within 2 hours; a bottled liquid that detoxes within 1 hour (which is the most popular selling detox item); a freeze-dried powder designed for mixing with water and drinking, which detoxes in two hours; daily cleansing capsules for continual detoxing; and shampoos that eliminate toxins from hair within 10 minutes.
As a group, the subtle type of manufacturer is highly guarded when discussing its wares with outsiders who are interested in learning about products' composition, efficacy, distribution and sales. When questioned, detox manufacturers are guarded and suspicious. They simply do not want outsiders raising questions about their products, their manufacturing and distribution. They are highly proprietary and overtly suspicious. They are insulated by the very name of their businesses which usually is something ambiguous, innocuous and revealing little about just what transpires within the four walls. Company names such as BNG, Sarken, One Source and Houston International reveal little about themselves and their products.
The obvious detox companies comprise a small minority of the detox industry. Their sales tactics are dissimilar to widely recognized standard procedures of doing business. For example, this type of company does not use distributors, wholesalers, and retailers; it does not attend industry trade shows. This type of detox company makes blatantly unguarded statements about its products. For example, typical claims are that the products will "beat drug tests" or "produce false negative" results on drug tests. The overt type of company advertises and sells its products almost solely through its web sites. The development of the world wide web clearly has led to the proliferation of numerous companies selling all manner of products, such as these, in a largely unregulated arena (see e.g., urineluck.com, passpee.com and passyourdrugtest.com).
The politics of tests and beating them
Drug testing, the social monitoring of job applicants and workers, is a component of general and dynamic processes of social control. Drug testing represents a fundamental shift in workplace employer-employee relations and is one of many of an increasing number of intrusions into workers' privacy. Workers in the contemporary United States are subject to various methods of surveillance and resulting control. From eavesdropping on employees' telephone conversations and monitoring internet use, to intercepting e-mail correspondence, employers are whittling away at workers' privacy. Previous generations of workers were subject to, for example, having lunch boxes and purses searched or were forced to punch time cards. Control methods today, however, are vastly different.
These modifications in some respects reflect changing technologies used in the workplace and which offer employers heretofore unknown surveillance modes and strategies. In other words, they may be technologically determined modes of control. They also are part of larger social and punitive changes in peoples' everyday lives and particularly in the workplace. Beyond lengthy background investigations, several rounds of interviews, polygraph, integrity, physical, and psychological screening, drug testing as a condition of employment has quickly become a primary technique for distinguishing the reputable from the disreputable. As a means of differentiating, it is considerably less expensive than background, physical or psychological investigations. It also, unlike polygraph exams, is admissible in court. Given drug testing's widespread use, it also has become standard operating procedure within innumerable private and public work settings. Employees testing positive are responded to in various ways by their employers. For example, companies react by issuing warnings or suspending employees, by forcing them into drug rehabilitation or by simply and immediately terminating their employment. Coerced rehabilitation is a questionable policy especially for individuals commonly detected for drug use - marijuana smokers. Termination, as a corporate response, typically occurs only after corroborating tests such as the GC/MS have been performed. In most cases, applicants who test positive are not hired and oftentimes prohibited from re-applying for a fixed period of time (usually six to 12 months). In some cases, applicants are not allowed to apply for work with that company again. Forced urination, it seems, is akin to extortion.
Social and private life increasingly are subject to public observation and surveillance. Yet, rather than defeatism characterizing social responses to cultural constraints, resistance is afoot. Granted, surveillance is vastly different today than any time previously. But, that does not necessarily mean the human spirit is unimaginative. It also does not imply that humans everywhere acquiesce. Rather, the age of surveillance generates varied responses including defiance.
Despite drug testing having become an accepted cultural mode for determining reputation, and despite its entrenchment within sophisticated surveillance methods, it nonetheless has been met, on several fronts, with criticism and resistance. Disparate individuals, interest groups and newly emerging anti-testing industries both critique and defy workplace drug testing policies and procedures. There are a number of commonly levied complaints including, for example that drug testing is an invasion of privacy and that results are neither confidential nor reliable. Testing is also criticized and resisted because it is viewed as yet another tactic in the war on drugs - a public policy characterized as flawed, misplaced, expensive and punitive - as opposed to one committed to public health and welfare. Furthermore, drug testing is criticized for its sheer financial social costs. It also is appraised as absent fundamental due processes and as an immoral and unethical approach to containing workplace drug use. Also, critics contend that there is little evidence to suggest that drug testing is an effective policy for controlling drug use in the workplace - the real issue - or at least the issue publically propagated by testing advocates. After all, drug testing, as currently implemented, does not reveal current impairment, only past use. Critics continually raise perhaps the most fundamental question of whether a substantial problem, commensurate with such initiatives, exists or has ever existed.
These criticisms have not fallen on deaf ears. Employers have given similar reasons for abandoning or deciding against adopting drug testing policies. In fact, of those companies that have chosen to not engage in drug testing procedures, 63 per cent claim that their decisions are based on their surmisal that drug testing is inaccurate and 43 per cent cite drug testing's inability to differentiate current impairment from previous use. Beyond statements about the inaccuracies and unreliability of testing, 68 per cent of employers recently surveyed consider testing an invasion of their employees' privacy. As a result, some have decided against implementing drug screening policies. Other employers resist using drug testing because of its adverse impacts on employee morale; indeed 53 per cent of those surveyed report such. And last, but certainly not least of importance to employers are the sheer financial expenditures associated with testing. A positive finding reportedly costs about $7,000.00 (and $23,000 within federal employment), when considering the expense of testing, the few positive results, costlier corroborating tests, and physician consultations.
The financial argument is a particularly salient one. The Drug Testing Index, a semi-annual survey, shows that positive results continue to decline with an overall positive rate of 4.7 per cent during 1999, down from 4.8 in 1998. Among federally mandated safety-sensitive positions, positive findings were at 3.2 per cent. The positive results for the overall work force continue their steady downward trend which began in 1988 when testing showed 13.6 per cent as positive results. Such data continue to raise critical questions about the cost effectiveness of these public policies.
The detox industry, while financially capitalizing on this new form of surveillance into workers' lives, has in the main been relatively quiet about the politics of drug use, drug testing and testing subterfuge. However, a small minority of manufacturers has entered the political fray by making a modicum of public statements about the war on drugs, drug testing in the workplace and its impact on civil liberties.
A few detox companies advocate collective action to end, as we now know it, drug testing in the workplace, which is ironic, for such changes in public policy ultimately would threaten the detox industry's production, sales and profiting. Most detox companies, however, manufacture and market their products without publicly taking positions on or issuing statements about drug use or workplace drug testing. Similarly, job applicants, employees and students quietly engage in subverting drug tests.
(Published works used in this research are fully referenced in the author's book, Pissing on Demand: Workplace Drug Testing and the Rise of the Detox Industry, 2004: New York University Press.)
