THE study shows that if Workplace Drug Testing (WDT) programs are very well implemented it can reduce the money lost to country’s economy that is paid for compensation and high insurance costs to workers after workplace accident have happened, this is according to the ‘World of Work Magazine’ of the International Labour Office (ILO) published in September 2006.
The magazine which carried a title ‘Brining decent work into focus’ is tremendous one that looks on the coming clean: drug and alcohol testing in the workplace. Workplace drug testing is an essentially controversial subject, one that questions where the line should be drawn between the right to privacy and the right to professionalism.
WDT is a relatively new phenomenon worldwide, migrating through multinationals from industrialized to developing countries. Some prescribe it is an effective way of managing substance abuse at work.
But, is it really? Argument surrounds WDT. The issues range from questions of privacy to social responsibility of employers and private enterprise.
What is more, the discussion is overwhelmed by questions such as whether test results are truly inductive of substance abuse on the job, or if chiefly show activities undertaken outside of workplace.
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE AT WORK
According to the 2005, Annual Report of the United Nations of Drugs and Crime (UNODC), 200 million working-age people between 15 and 64, or five percent of the global population, used illicit drugs at least once during 2005. If we take a closer look, and we discovered that cannabis use is most prevalent in the islands of the pacific, followed by North America and Africa.
Almost two thirds of the amphetamine (drug that gives you a feeling of excitement and a lot of energy) and methamphetamine users of the world reside in Asia. In addition, two thirds of 14 million cocaine users worldwide live in the Americans (UNODC, 2005).
Drug abuse costs the US economy more than US$250 billion each year, including about 500 million lost working days. The Department of Labour, which estimates that up to 9 million workers in the US use drugs, says employees who abuse drugs and alcohol have 66 percent more absences and file more compensation claims than non- abusers. They are involved in about half of all workplace accidents and used 300 percent more health benefits than other employees.
Meanwhile, in the UK between 11 and 17 million days are lost each year because of excessive drinking alone, which cost the economy €1.8 billion every year, according to Alcohol Concern.
When tallying the money lost to a country’s economy, one must also consider the effects of increased risk of injury, depression, stress, reduced morale, increased absenteeism and high workers’ compensation and insurance costs. For instance, alcohol and drug misuse costs businesses in Albert, Canada more than US$400 million every year in lost productivity, says the Albert Alcohol and Drug additions Commission.
WORKPLACE GOOD PRACTICE
If employers do decide to test, it is important to use good practice, such as:
• Policy: There must be a written policy document, the content of which is known to all concerned. The policy should included prevention, identification, counseling, treatment, rehabilitation, and details on at what stage disciplinary action will be taken.
• Confidentiality: Must be strictly observed.
• Quality: Initial screening and confirmation methods must be based on different principles of analytical chemistry or different chromatography separations. Tests should be carried out by an accredited laboratory using acceptable guidelines for procedures.
• Consultation: Policy should be developed in consultation with workers and/or their representatives.
• Review: procedures should be regularly reviewed to make continuous improvement
• Have preventive policies and programs in place guided by the ILO Code of Practice, 1996.
ILO CODE OF PRACTICE, 1996
The ILO code of practice, 19996 emphasizes the preventive approach, which:
• Calls for joint assessment by employers and workers and their representatives of the effects of alcohol and drug use on the workplace and their cooperation in developing a written policy for the enterprise;
• Defines alcohol and drug-related problems as health problems and establishes the need to deal with them, without any discrimination, like any other health problem at work;
• Recommends that workplace drug and alcohol policies should cover all aspects of the prevention, reduction and management of alcohol- and –drug-related problems and that the relevant information, education and training programs be integrated, where feasible, into broad-base human resources development, working conditions or occupational safety and health programs; and,
• goes a long way towards establishing the ethical principles vital to concerted and effective action, such as confidentiality of personal information and authority of the employer to discipline workers for employment-related misconduct, even where it is associated with the use of alcohol and drugs.
Tanzania let us try this WDT methodology, by so doing we can be in the better position reducing the money lost to country’s economy for the payment of workers’ compensation and insurance costs, considering the effects of increased risk of injury, depression, stress, reduced morale, increased absenteeism and high workers’ compensation and insurance costs.
End
The magazine which carried a title ‘Brining decent work into focus’ is tremendous one that looks on the coming clean: drug and alcohol testing in the workplace. Workplace drug testing is an essentially controversial subject, one that questions where the line should be drawn between the right to privacy and the right to professionalism.
WDT is a relatively new phenomenon worldwide, migrating through multinationals from industrialized to developing countries. Some prescribe it is an effective way of managing substance abuse at work.
But, is it really? Argument surrounds WDT. The issues range from questions of privacy to social responsibility of employers and private enterprise.
What is more, the discussion is overwhelmed by questions such as whether test results are truly inductive of substance abuse on the job, or if chiefly show activities undertaken outside of workplace.
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE AT WORK
According to the 2005, Annual Report of the United Nations of Drugs and Crime (UNODC), 200 million working-age people between 15 and 64, or five percent of the global population, used illicit drugs at least once during 2005. If we take a closer look, and we discovered that cannabis use is most prevalent in the islands of the pacific, followed by North America and Africa.
Almost two thirds of the amphetamine (drug that gives you a feeling of excitement and a lot of energy) and methamphetamine users of the world reside in Asia. In addition, two thirds of 14 million cocaine users worldwide live in the Americans (UNODC, 2005).
Drug abuse costs the US economy more than US$250 billion each year, including about 500 million lost working days. The Department of Labour, which estimates that up to 9 million workers in the US use drugs, says employees who abuse drugs and alcohol have 66 percent more absences and file more compensation claims than non- abusers. They are involved in about half of all workplace accidents and used 300 percent more health benefits than other employees.
Meanwhile, in the UK between 11 and 17 million days are lost each year because of excessive drinking alone, which cost the economy €1.8 billion every year, according to Alcohol Concern.
When tallying the money lost to a country’s economy, one must also consider the effects of increased risk of injury, depression, stress, reduced morale, increased absenteeism and high workers’ compensation and insurance costs. For instance, alcohol and drug misuse costs businesses in Albert, Canada more than US$400 million every year in lost productivity, says the Albert Alcohol and Drug additions Commission.
WORKPLACE GOOD PRACTICE
If employers do decide to test, it is important to use good practice, such as:
• Policy: There must be a written policy document, the content of which is known to all concerned. The policy should included prevention, identification, counseling, treatment, rehabilitation, and details on at what stage disciplinary action will be taken.
• Confidentiality: Must be strictly observed.
• Quality: Initial screening and confirmation methods must be based on different principles of analytical chemistry or different chromatography separations. Tests should be carried out by an accredited laboratory using acceptable guidelines for procedures.
• Consultation: Policy should be developed in consultation with workers and/or their representatives.
• Review: procedures should be regularly reviewed to make continuous improvement
• Have preventive policies and programs in place guided by the ILO Code of Practice, 1996.
ILO CODE OF PRACTICE, 1996
The ILO code of practice, 19996 emphasizes the preventive approach, which:
• Calls for joint assessment by employers and workers and their representatives of the effects of alcohol and drug use on the workplace and their cooperation in developing a written policy for the enterprise;
• Defines alcohol and drug-related problems as health problems and establishes the need to deal with them, without any discrimination, like any other health problem at work;
• Recommends that workplace drug and alcohol policies should cover all aspects of the prevention, reduction and management of alcohol- and –drug-related problems and that the relevant information, education and training programs be integrated, where feasible, into broad-base human resources development, working conditions or occupational safety and health programs; and,
• goes a long way towards establishing the ethical principles vital to concerted and effective action, such as confidentiality of personal information and authority of the employer to discipline workers for employment-related misconduct, even where it is associated with the use of alcohol and drugs.
Tanzania let us try this WDT methodology, by so doing we can be in the better position reducing the money lost to country’s economy for the payment of workers’ compensation and insurance costs, considering the effects of increased risk of injury, depression, stress, reduced morale, increased absenteeism and high workers’ compensation and insurance costs.
End
Comments