Drug Use and The Effect on Business
...se in the United States”. This report, a continuation of a former report published by the Lewin Group, estimated the costs of drug abuse from 1992 through 2000. The estimates showed that drug use in the USA increased by 5.9% from 1992 to 1998. The total cost to society, not just businesses, exceeded $143.4 billion in 1998 and productivity loss accounted for $111 billion. This report estimated the costs in 2000 would be almost $161 billion dollars (O.N.D.C.P. 2001). One misconception to the report is that productivity costs included those costs such as deaths, health care costs, law enforcement and incarceration costs. Back these costs out and actual lost productivity costs were estimated to be about $25 billion (Duncan, 2002). The estimates for lost productivity were derived from estimates of hard-core drug users, those who have used marijuana or cocaine more than 100 days in their lifetime. One problem that stemmed from this calculation is that there was a possibility that drug users who used both marijuana and cocaine for more than 100 days might have been counted twice. (Duncan, 2002). One shortfall of this report was that it failed to include alcohol use, rather only included illicit drug use. Neglecting to include this information is detrimental to the statistics estimated by the report. While drug use in and of itself is important, it is also important to include statistics about alcohol use and its economic impact. Separate reports have been done on the impact of alcohol abuse, but no such report from the O.N.D.C.P. reports the two together. H.R Focus What Does the Renewed Rise in Employee Drug Use Mean to HR? No Author Listed In this article, evidence was presented that drug and alcohol use among employees was on the rise. While the trend in positive drug tests reported declined between 1988 and 1999 from 13.6% to 4.6% positive respectively, it rose to 4.7% in 2000 (HR Focus, 2002, p.7). This article reported interviews with 469 drug users and found, “about 25% held professional jobs, 51% were office workers or skilled laborers, 13% were semiskilled workers and 11% were unskilled or unemployed” (HR Focus, 2002, p.7). Fifty two percent of the people interviewed reported that they drove immediately after drug or alcohol use in the prior week (HR Focus, 2002, p.7). Important findings in this research suggest that men are more likely than women to do drugs at work or heavy drinkers will more likely drink at work than light drinkers. Both educated and professional workers are just as likely to use drugs at work, as are lower level less educated workers. This article also stated that marital status had no effect on alcohol or drug use while at work (HR Focus, 2002, p.7). Research suggests that there are four factors that could make drug or alcohol use more prevalent in the workplace. 1. Availability; if drugs are readily available, employees are much more likely to use them 2. Risk; excessive hazards, factors such as noisy workplace like factories are contusive to drug use 3. Repetitive task jobs; employees feel that these jobs are boring 4. Subculture of the employees; if there is a strong drinking subculture, employees are more likely to start drinking during lunch and just after work HR Magazine worked with Quest Diagnostics, Inc. to study drug tests. Quest Diagnostics administers millions of drug tests each year and charted the results (HR Focus, 2002, p.8). Below, the chart shows the trends from 1997 to 2000 and includes positive rates by category and reason. The reports shows that from 1997 to 2000, the general workforce had the highest rates of positive tests at 5.2%, 5%, 4.8% and 4.9% respectively. For Federally Mandated drug tests, the rates of positive from 1997 to 2000 were 3.5%, 3.4%, 3.2%, and 3.1% respectively. Lastly, for the total combined US workforce from 1997 to 2000, the positive rates were 5%, 4.8%, 4.6%, and 4.7% respectively (HR Focus, 2002, p.8). Federally mandated work forces are those companies which receive federal funds. These companies are required to participate in the “Drug Free Workplace” program and are also required to offer EAP’s to their employees. This is one reason why their positive results are lower than the general workforce (HR Focus, 2002, p.8). Below is a chart with the positive rates and reasons test was given. Drug Testing for cause proved to be the highest for all years 1997 to 2000 with positive occurrences at 26.7%, 25.3%, 24.7% and 25.7% respectively. All of the other rates were fairly even with return to work positive results just higher than periodic, post-accident, pre-employment and random (HR Focus, 2002, p.8). Mississippi Business Journal Intervening on employee’s drug, alcohol problem saves company By Kelly Russell According to Russell, “Employers who recognize the signals of addiction and confront the user can save a lot of heartache and money down the road” (Russell, 1997, p.13). The typical personality of a drug user can make intervention very difficult for managers. Drug addicts can be charismatic, strong-willed and driven. If the employee is of above average intelligence, they will sometimes use those charms to avoid problems. In short, drug addicts, when pressed, are con artists. Russell states that there are signs that managers should look for. When employees start showing up to work late, seem irritable, become undependable, and performance begins to decline, these could be signs of drug use (Russell, 1997, p.13). Russell states that “between 6% and 23% of employees are affected by chemical dependency or substance abuse, but only 3% of employees seek treatment” (Russell, 1997, p.13). It is important to note that the 3% figure is a percentage of the 6-23% figure, so for every 1000 employees, there are 60 who have drug abuse problems and only 3 will receive treatment (Russell, 1997, p.13). The costs to help employees with drug addictions are more than that for mental health problems, but the investment “could result in significant reductions in total healthcare costs” (Russell, 1997, p.13). No additional information is offered to explain how much in total health care costs will be saved. Russell makes several points in her article such as “Alcoholism costs employers 33 billion…drug use costs additional billions for employers…” and “…substance abuse treatment can result in significant reductions in total health care costs” (Russell, 1997, p.13). These statements are very vague and provide no deeper insight as to the extent of the drug problem. They do not address how much money will be save by getting employees treatment. Also, how much does drug use cost employers? Russell states drugs cost additional billions, but how much and in what way? Lost productivity, absenteeism, what? Splitting Hairs HR Magazine By Stephanie Overman While the bulk of this article addresses drug testing in the workplace, there are a few paragraphs that address the effects of drug use in the workplace. In her article, Overman writes, “Individuals who use drugs are three and a half times more likely to file a worker’s compensation claim” (Overman, 1999, p45). She claims that 74 percent of all drug users are employed outside the home (Overman, 1999, p45). In a recent interview between Overman and the Gallup Organization, she found that 42% of the people surveyed by that organization stated that drug abuse is a safety hazard. Also, health care costs relating to drug abuse accounted for 40% of all healthcare costs (Overman, 1999, p45). Overman stated that one study showed US Postal Service workers who used drugs were estimated to be 33% less productive and twice a likely to receive disciplinary actions. Additionally, she found that drug abusers are terminated at a rate of 2:1 compared to non-drug users (Overman, 1999, p45). Drugs on the Job Behavioral Health Management By Michael J. Stoil According to Stoil, “…between 7 and 8% of full time workers have consistently reported at least some drug use during the previous 30 days, and roughly 10% of both employed and unemployed Americans have reported heavy alcohol use…” ( Stoil, 1998, p.7). Drug use among younger employees is more prevalent than drug use by older employees say’s Stoil. The younger worker is defined as 3...