<%BANNER%>

Construction Drug Testing Practices and Trends

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022704/00001

Material Information

Title: Construction Drug Testing Practices and Trends
Physical Description: 1 online resource (75 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Arduengo, Christopher
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: adulterants, construction, drug, safety, test
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The use of drug testing in the workplace as an affective way to improve jobsite safety, productivity and company profits has been increasing since its initial inception. The public sector has increasingly accepted the relevance and importance of drug testing programs and has embraced drug-free workplace policies. Many in the construction industry have recognized this trend and have followed suit. Knowing the inherent danger of the construction industry, some managers have begun to recognize the increased danger of having impaired workers on site and have been instituting and maintaining drug testing policies. Many different drug testing practices have been developed and are being implemented with favorable results. Advancements in technology have also created new and diverse methods of conducting drug tests. The purpose of this study is to identify the drug testing practices and methods of testing that are currently being used in the construction industry. Secondly, the study examines the primary substances being abused in the construction industry. Finally the use and prevalence of adulterants to 'beat' the drug tests were examined. The data were collected through a written survey and analyzed to present an overview of the current drug testing practice in the United States construction industry.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Christopher Arduengo.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Hinze, Jimmie W.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2009-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022704:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022704/00001

Material Information

Title: Construction Drug Testing Practices and Trends
Physical Description: 1 online resource (75 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Arduengo, Christopher
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: adulterants, construction, drug, safety, test
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The use of drug testing in the workplace as an affective way to improve jobsite safety, productivity and company profits has been increasing since its initial inception. The public sector has increasingly accepted the relevance and importance of drug testing programs and has embraced drug-free workplace policies. Many in the construction industry have recognized this trend and have followed suit. Knowing the inherent danger of the construction industry, some managers have begun to recognize the increased danger of having impaired workers on site and have been instituting and maintaining drug testing policies. Many different drug testing practices have been developed and are being implemented with favorable results. Advancements in technology have also created new and diverse methods of conducting drug tests. The purpose of this study is to identify the drug testing practices and methods of testing that are currently being used in the construction industry. Secondly, the study examines the primary substances being abused in the construction industry. Finally the use and prevalence of adulterants to 'beat' the drug tests were examined. The data were collected through a written survey and analyzed to present an overview of the current drug testing practice in the United States construction industry.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Christopher Arduengo.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Hinze, Jimmie W.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2009-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022704:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

CONSTRUCTION DRUG TESTING PRACTICES AND TRENDS By CHRISTOPHER ARDUENGO A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Christopher Arduengo 2

PAGE 3

To my Mom and Dad. 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my parents for supporting me in my decision to return to school and pursue a masters degree at the University of Florida. I also thank Susan for making the trips to Gainesville to visit me and putting me up when I needed a reprieve from Gainesville and some good company. Special thanks go to my Mom and Susan for helping me distribute the surveys. I would also like to thank Dr. Jimmie Hinze for the guidance in helping me to complete my research. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................8 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................9 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .10 Background.............................................................................................................................10 Statement of Purpose........................................................................................................... ...11 Research Objectives............................................................................................................ ....12 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................14 Drug Use in the Construction Industry...................................................................................14 The Case for Drug Testing In the Construction Industry.......................................................15 Drug Testing Practices: An Overview...................................................................................22 Pre-Employment Testing.................................................................................................22 Random Testing...............................................................................................................23 Periodic Testing...............................................................................................................24 Post-Accident Testing.....................................................................................................24 Testing For Reasonable Cause........................................................................................25 Follow-Up Testing...........................................................................................................26 Methods of Drug Testing........................................................................................................27 Urine Testing...................................................................................................................29 Advantages...............................................................................................................29 Disadvantages...........................................................................................................29 Sweat Testing..................................................................................................................30 Advantages...............................................................................................................31 Disadvantages...........................................................................................................31 Saliva Testing..................................................................................................................31 Advantages...............................................................................................................32 Disadvantages...........................................................................................................32 Hair Testing.....................................................................................................................33 Advantages...............................................................................................................34 Disadvantages...........................................................................................................34 Adulterants in Drug Testing...................................................................................................3 5 Developing and Implementing a Drug Testing Policy...........................................................37 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................3 9 Overview....................................................................................................................... ..........39 5

PAGE 6

Development of Survey.......................................................................................................... 39 Explanation of Survey.......................................................................................................... ..40 Part 1: Drug Testing Practices........................................................................................41 Part 2: Manner of Testing...............................................................................................41 Part 3: Substances Abused..............................................................................................41 Part 4: Workers Compensation.....................................................................................42 Part 5: Use of Adulterants..............................................................................................42 Part 6: Consequences of Positive Tests..........................................................................42 Summary.................................................................................................................................43 Distribution of the Survey..................................................................................................... .43 Data Collection and Recording...............................................................................................43 4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS.................................................................................................45 Pre-employmen t Testing......................................................................................................... 46 Random Testing................................................................................................................. .....48 Post-Accident Testing.............................................................................................................52 Drugs Detected through Testing.............................................................................................54 Cheating on Drug Tests and Adulterant Use..........................................................................55 Alternative Test Methods....................................................................................................... 57 Workers Compensation.........................................................................................................6 0 Additional Analysis............................................................................................................ ....62 5 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................. ..63 6 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................66 Research Recommendations...................................................................................................66 Industry Recommendations....................................................................................................66 APPENDIX A DRUG TESTING SURVEY QUESTIONAIRRE.................................................................68 B DRUG TESTING COVER LETTER.....................................................................................71 LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................73 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................75 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 4.1 Annual Dollar Volume of Business of Responding Firms.....................................................45 4.2 Number of Field Employees................................................................................................. ..46 4.3 Percentage of the Workfor ce Tested for Random Drug Tests................................................49 4.4 Are Management and Office Personnel Subject to Random Drug Tests................................50 4.5 Number of Panels in Random Tests........................................................................................51 4.6 Number of Panels in Post-Accident Testing............................................................................53 4.7 Percentage of Tests with Re sults Available Within Minutes..................................................54 4.8 In Your Opinion, How Extensive is Cheating on Drug Tests.................................................56 4.9 On What Percentage of Worker Drug Tests is Cheating Suspected.......................................56 4.10 What is the Companys View of Hair Analysis Testing.......................................................58 4.11 What is the Company View of Saliva Tests for Alcohol......................................................59 4.12 What is the Companys View of Saliva Tests for Drugs......................................................59 4.13 What is the companys view of sweat tests for drugs...........................................................60 4.14 Positive Test Results and OSHA RIRs................................................................................62 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4.1 Comparison of current percent positive pre-employment tests vs. 5 years ago (based on 52 responses)......................................................................................................................47 4.3 What type of random tests are given....................................................................................... 51 4.4 Percentage of positive tests on post-accident testing..............................................................52 4.5 Type of specimen collected for post-accident testing.............................................................53 4.7 The second most frequently abused drug currently vs. 5 years ago.......................................55 8

PAGE 9

Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science of Building Construction CONSTRUCTION DRUG TESTING PRACTICES AND TRENDS By Christopher Arduengo August 2008 Chair: Jimmie Hinze Major: Building Construction The use of drug testing in the workplace as an affective way to improve jobsite safety, productivity and company profits has been increasing since its initial in ception. The public sector has increasingly accepted the relevance an d importance of drug testing programs and has embraced drug-free workplace policies. Many in th e construction industry have recognized this trend and have followed suit. Knowing the inhe rent danger of the construction industry, some managers have begun to recognize the increased da nger of having impaired workers on site and have been instituting and maintaining drug testing policies. Many different drug testing practices have been developed and are being implemented with favorable results. Advancements in technology have also created new and diverse methods of conducti ng drug tests. The purpose of this study is to identify the drug testing practices and methods of testing th at are currently being used in the constructi on industry. Secondly, the study examin es the primary substances being abused in the construction industr y. Finally the use and prevalen ce of adulterants to beat the drug tests were examined. The data were coll ected through a written survey and analyzed to present an overview of the cu rrent drug testing pract ice in the United States construction industry. 9

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Drug testing, since the first assessments were conducted by the United States Military in the 1970s, has been linked to workplace safety a nd has been a preventative strategy to increase both worker and public safety. The United States Navy was the first organization, public or private, to begin drug testing its soldiers du ring the Vietnam War. The initial drug testing programs were aimed at identifying service pers onnel who had begun to experiment with illegal drugs in South East Asia and to identify and tr eat those who had become addicted to heroin. President Richard Nixon in 1971 ordered the Secretary of Defense to create these programs to identify and treat drug abusers in the military, wh ich would eventually lead to the drug testing programs that are used in the private sector workplace today. Initially the Department of Defenses dr ug abuser identification programs were not successful at preventing drug use, but were effect ive in identifying the drug users. Ten years after Nixons original order, drug use was still prevalent in the military, with surveys conducted by the DoD finding many incidents of abuse by offi cers and enlisted service personnel. On May 26, 1981 a tragic accident aboard the Aircraft Carrier Nimitz wa s linked to the impairment of personnel due to illegal drug use. Fourteen pe ople were killed, 48 injured and $150 million in property loss was caused, includi ng the destruction of seven Navy aircraft. The destruction and loss of life were all a result of personnel under the influenc e of illegal drugs. Following this incident the military instituted a ze ro tolerance drug policy in 1982. The Navy began requiring that all active duty pe rsonnel to be screened for drug use. After the Navys adoption of a drug tes ting policy, the Federal Governme nt followed suit requiring all of its employees in safety sensitive lines of work to undergo dr ug testing out of concern for the 10

PAGE 11

publics safety. These new government drug testing policies covered a wide array of industries including aviation, nuclear energy, road transpor tation, maritime jobs, and nuclear, coal and petroleum energy. All of these industries carried great risks of occupational hazards and hazards to the public health. Not long after adopting drug testing policies for workers exposed to occupational safety hazards did the government adopt drug testing prog rams for all Federal Government jobs. Pre-employment drug screeni ng and random testing became typical to gain and maintain employment with the Federal Government. At this time many large private employers began to use pre-employment drug screen ing and random drug testing as well. At this moment in American History, dr ug use was at an epidemic level and these workplace programs were seen as an effective way to prevent accid ents and create drug fr ee workplaces. (DoD 2000) Pre-employment screening and random drug te sting have both maintained their popularity as effective preventative programs in the workpl ace since these tests we re first conducted by the United States Military. These policies and practices are credited with creating more efficient and productive employees and with lowering the inci dence of on-the-job accidents (Minchin 2006). This holds true of all industri es, especially in construction. Drug testing in construction is a highly effective way of limiting the number of impaired employees on site, increasing a companys productivity and profit margin, incr easing the overall morale of workers and increasing overall project safety. Statement of Purpose With the aforementioned benefits to the construction industry, it is important that the industry adopt and maintain effective pre-empl oyment drug screening and random drug testing. Many large construction contract ors are using pre-employment drug screening and random drug testing in some form or anot her in order to create drug fr ee workplaces and to improve 11

PAGE 12

construction safety, production a nd efficiency. Currently there are many different types of drug testing practices and programs which are bei ng employed in the construction industry. These practices include pre-employment drug sc reening, random testing, post-accident testing, for cause testing, and follow-up testing. New testing procedures and practices are being developed and used to varying degrees in the construction industry as well. It is the purpose of this study to identify and examin e the current experiences and practices of construction contract ors with regards to drug testing and also to identify any new practices that are being employe d by construction companies. Understanding what drug testing practices are being employed, how they are being administered and analyzing the results of the testing methods should give the industry a genera l idea of what types of drug testing are being administered to employees. Research Objectives Drug testing in the construction industry has become reasonably commonplace among large construction firms for nearly two decades. In that time, new developments have been made in testing procedures and practices. The issue to be examined by this research was to assess the current practices of the construction industry rela ted to drug testing. No recent research studies had been conducted in this area. The objectives of the research were to characterize the drug testing practices employed by the construction industry. By gathering data through surveys, the research would provide, information on the most commonly used drug testi ng practices and the manne r in which the tests are administered. The research was to identi fy alternative manners of testing, other than urinalysis tests, and to gauge the extent of use of these tests and the perceptions of their effectiveness and reliability. It was also the objective of the study to identify the most commonly abused substances according to positive drug test results. With the increased use of 12

PAGE 13

drug testing in the workplace, increased instan ces of cheating have occurred by the use of various forms of adulterants. The study aim was to identify the perceived prevalence of cheating through the use of adulterants, as well as the type of adulterants commonly used. 13

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Drug Use in the Construction Industry Estimates place the percentage of the i ndustrial workforce substance abusers at approximately 10%. One study estimated that 29% of the American workforce between the ages of 20 and 40 had used illegal drugs at least once during the course of th e previous year (NIDA 1990). Another study concluded that 24% of the industrial workers had either heard of or actually witnessed illegal drug use by a fellow coworker (Gallup Organization 1990). These percentages are rather large and show the preval ence of drug use in the American workforce. When the construction industry is analyzed alone many experts estimate that the incidence of substance abuse is 20% of the workforce (Hinze 2006). With approximately 6.7 million people employed in the construction industry, representing 5% of the national labor fo rce, it is apparent that there are la rge numbers of substance abusers in the construction industry (Minchin et al. 2006). One reason for the high incidence of substance abuse within the construc tion industry is related to the labo r pool from which the workers are hired. The construction industry draws heavily from the labor pool made up of 18 to 34 yearolds (Minchin et al. 2006). According to the United States Department of Labor this age demographic constitutes the la rgest percentage of drug user s (SAMHSA 1997). According to United States Department of Health and Hu man Services, males, especially young males, represent the largest demographic of drug users. This demographic also makes up the majority of the construction industry workforce and is refl ected in the industrys high rate of substance abuse. A 1997 National Household Survey of Drug Us e conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services examined subs tance abuse by occupational category and found 14

PAGE 15

construction to have the highest percentage of full time workers reporting illicit drug use and heavy alcohol use. The analysis of the result s describing the high rates of substance abuse in construction were described as, Young males w ith low education might be attracted to construction jobs because these are entry-level jobs that do not require a high school diploma. The association of high rates of drug use with construction jo bs might simply reflect the demographic composition of this occupation, ra ther than a causal relationship (SAMHSA 1997). The United States Department of Labor and Department of Health and Human Services have put together some other pe rtinent statistics showing the breadth of substance abuse within the construction industry. Among full time construction workers between the ages of 18 and 49, over 12% reported illicit drug use within the last 30 days (SAMHSA 1996) Among full time construction workers between the ages of 18 and 49, almost 21% reported illicit drug use in the past year (SAMHSA 1996) Among full time construction workers between the ages of 18 and 49, approximately 13% have admitted to heavy alcohol abuse (SAMHSA 1996) A total of 63.3% of the cons truction workers have used alcohol in the past month and 14.7% admit to heavy alcohol use (SAMHSA 1996) The mining and construction industries have reported the highest ra tes of alcohol and illicit drug use among all American industries (SAMHSA 1996) Unmarried workers have reporte d double the rate of drug use as married workers, and the construction industry as a whol e has a higher percentage of unmarried employees than other industries (Min chin et al 2006) The Case for Drug Testing In the Construction Industry The construction industry has been shown to have a very high accident rates as a whole making it a necessity that management take the prope r steps to create programs and practices that 15

PAGE 16

will improve both construction safety and worker productivity. Drug use has clearly been shown to contribute to accidents which affect both pr oductivity and job safety in the construction industry. Drug testing policies in construction create an effectiv e way to improve the on-site accident rate, create safer work environments, im prove worker productivity and in turn create higher profits for the company (Minchin et al 20 06). Drug testing in the workplace can be an effective way to both weed out substance abusers from the workforce and create a deterrent for current employees to abuse drugs or alcohol. The implementation of drug testing programs in the construction indus try to create a drug free workplace has several important benefits a ccording to Minchin et al. (2006). Improvements can be seen in the reduction of employee turnover absenteeism and job site accidents ( Minchin et al 2006). A drug-free workplace can also foster the promotion of public and personal safety, create a reduction in project costs, maximi ze organizational and indi vidual productivity, and improve overall jobsite efficiency (Minchin et al 2006). All of these benefits created by drug testing programs and drug-free workplaces should pay dividends in the form of increased profit margins for the contractor. Construction work is inherently more dangero us than most occupations. According to the Associated General Contractors, construction accidents make up 20% of all workplace accidents in the United States (AGC 1998) The construction industry also had the larges t number of fatalities and ranked first in injury rates in 2001 a ccording to the Department of Labor (Minchin et al 2006). Estimates claim that over 800 deaths and 20,000 injuries resulting in lost time could be avoided and over $2 per hour in worke rs compensation costs could be recovered if health and safety practices were improved (Minchin et al 2006). The rate of fatal injuries in the construction industry (OSHA 2001) is approxi mately 13.3 fatalities for every 100,000 workers 16

PAGE 17

employed (Minchin et al 2006). These statistics could be dramatically lowered in the United States if more stringent health and safety practices were adopted by the industry (Minchin et al 2006). One way in which these statistics could be lowered is by adopti ng drug testing programs in the construction industry. The risk faced by the workforce and the public is multiplied when construction workers abuse drugs and alcohol. In 1998, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) estimated that 65% of all work relate d accidents are due to drug and alcohol abuse. A 1998 study headed by former Senator Dan Quayle showed that 5-10% of all American workers suffer from some form of s ubstance abuse problem and that from 3-7% use some type of illicit drug. That study also revealed that 47% of all industrial injuries and 40% of all industrial fatalities could be traced back to some type of substance abuse (Hinze 2006). These numbers create a clear-cut case for estab lishing drug-free workplaces in construction by implementing drug testing programs to dramatically lower or eliminate the instances of impaired construction workers and thereby reduce the number of accidents and fatalities on site (Minchin et al 2006). Drug and alcohol abuse is also responsible for causing the co nstruction industry to increase substantial additional costs each year. One estim ate puts the magnitude of these additional costs of drug and alcohol abuse all to American businesses at about $100 billion/year, or the equivalent of $740 per employee, whether that employee is a drug user or not (Minchin et al 2006, CNA Commercial Insurance 1998). These costs to Amer ican businesses include among other things, costs associated with health cons equences and their effects on the health care system, criminal behavior, job lo ss, and reliance on societys safety nets (Minchin et al 2006). The effect of employee drug or alcohol abuse can ultimately result in considerable monetary losses to a company as well as create higher in surance premiums (Minchin et al 2006). A 17

PAGE 18

company or contractor wishing to run a prof itable and productive business should be aware of the associated costs that come with substance ab use, and take steps to avoid them by establishing effective substance abuse program s through drug testing. It has been shown that 98% of the Fortune 200 companies utilize drug testing programs (AGC 1998). Another side effect of substance abuse in th e construction industry is the additional costs incurred by jobsite theft incidents. An increase in crime is often associated with increased drug use in a society, and a construc tion jobsite is no exception. It is common that a construction worker will start to steal from an employer to sustain a drug habit. It is estimated that 80% of substance abusers steal to support their habit (Minchin et al 2006). These losses due to theft can add up to significant costs for a construction contractor. The increase in accidents and fatalities a ssociated with drug use in the construction industry can naturally lead to an increase in the amount of work ers compensation claims as well. Previous studies give the industr y an overview of the magnitude of workers compensation costs to the industry as a whole. A 1993 National Safety Council study estimated that injuries, medical costs and losses of pr oductivity and wages amounted to $112 billion (NIOSH 1998). Unlike some other monetary losses to companies in the United States, these losses are in large part avoidable (Minchin et al 2006). Companies can realiz e significant savings by reducing employee absences and reducing the number of acci dents, which would lead to a reduction in workers compensation premiums and an increase in productivity and employment reliability (Minchin et al 2006). The same National Safety Council study found that fifteen percent of all losses are allocated to construc tion injuries (NIOSH 1998). This means that $16.8 billion of the $112 billion was lost to constructi on injuries (Minchin et al 20 06). Another study showed that the employers in the constructi on and mining industries paid about 5.17% of their payroll on 18

PAGE 19

workers compensation claims. This is significantly higher than the nati onal average of all other industries of 2.02% of payroll (Minchin et al 200 6). These significant costs due to injuries or fatalities resulting in workers compensation clai ms could be lowered by instituting drug testing policies. Motivation to lower workers compensation costs in the construction industry has led to the implementation of drug testing and drug-free wor kplaces. The implementation of drug testing programs in construction companies in the state of Florida has paid dividends in savings from lowered amounts of workers compensation claims A 1993 survey of 152 Florida construction companies showed these monetary benefits. Construction companies that had drug-free workplaces reported having average claim costs th at were 50% lower than the average claim costs reported by companies without drug-fr ee workplace programs (Hinze 2006). The 1993 study showed that companies without drug testin g policies reported average claims costs of $9489 while companies with drug testing programs reported an average claims cost of only $4759 (Hinze 2006). Similar findings were repo rted when 1992 data was analyzed (Hinze 2006). One statement that can be made from these findings is that assuming those firms without drug-free workplace programs employ more substance abusers, it can be concluded that, when substance abusers are injured, their injuries are more severe (Hinze 2006). In some states workers compensation insurance rates are reduced when an employer is able to show that they have taken steps to create a drug-free wor kplace (Hinze 2006). These drug free workplace States that offer work ers compensation premium discounts include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Ida ho, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, Georgia, Ohio, Virgin ia and North Dakota (Minchin et al 2006). Twelve drug free workplace states require all insurance companie s to offer a discount on workers compensation 19

PAGE 20

premiums to all employers that have establishe d drug-free workplaces. Even in states where there is no mandate to provide a drug-free wo rkplace, insurance premium discounts many still are offered by individual insurance companie s to employers who have drug-free workplace programs (Minchin et al 2006). Workers comp ensation premiums are sometimes reduced as much as 15% for employers who demonstrate th ey have established a drug-free workplace. Often, employers find that the savings from reduced workers compensation premiums are sufficiently high to pay for and maintain th e companys drug testing program (Hinze 2006). Even if all the savings realized from reduced workers compensation premiums are spent on the drug testing program, additional savings will be seen in other areas. A study by the National Council on Compensa tion Insurance (NCCI) also found that employers within the state of Florida, a drugfree workplace state offering drug-free workplace insurance credits, were able to lower their losses from workers compensation claims considerably more than those companies that did not have a drug-free workplace and did not receive this credit (NCCI 1998). The lower costs resulted from a d ecrease in the average costs of the accidents that were incurred and a decrease in the frequency of accidents. The average discount for drug-free workplace companies is just over 5% wh ich can lead to a significant advantage for a company in the competitiv e bidding process (Minchin et al 2006). The NCCI study results were backed up by another national study conducted by Cornell University which showed that companies that te sted for drug use realized a 51% reduction in injury rates over a two-year peri od of instituting drug testing programs. This was compared to the industry-wide average of a 14% reduction over the same two-year period (Minchin et al 2006). The companies that instituted drug testing programs also saw a significant decrease in injury rates according to the Corn ell study. Over the two-year obs ervation period the injury rates 20

PAGE 21

of construction companies with drug testing programs were reduced from 4.46 to 2.22 incidents/100,000 worker hours (Minch in et al 2006). This result ed in companies in the study that instituted a drug-testing program lowering their workers compensation experience-rating modification factor by 11.41% (Minchin et al 2006). A study provided by one of the Great American Groups showed that employers that used drug testing programs in their company saw a re duction in claims. The study showed that businesses that instituted pre-employment drug screening and random drug testing saw a dramatic 72% reduction in the frequency of clai ms in 1996 and an 80% decrease in work days lost due to injury. The 1998 study also showed that 80% of all workplace injuries were attributable to the behavior of workers, while unsafe working conditions accounted for only 20% (Great American Insurance 1998). It can be inferred that if insurance companies are offering reductions in workers compensation insurance premiums to companies w ith drug testing programs than there must be statistical data to warrant these reductions. Insu rance companies are in business to make a profit and in order to offer insurance premium discounts and stay competitive with other insurance companies there must be data showing meaningful savings in insurance costs for companies that are instituting drug-free workplaces through drug testing (Minchin et al 2006). This would be the primary reason that an insura nce company would choose to rewa rd a contractor for instituting a drug testing program in the workplace. It can also be assumed that if offering premium discounts to companies was not profitable for the insurance provider they might opt to not offer workers compensation insurance within any of the states with drug-free workplace mandates (Minchin et al 2006). 21

PAGE 22

Drug Testing Practices: An Overview Construction contractors have been adopti ng drug testing programs as a preventative measure against accident and to improve efficiency and productivity for the past two decades. Construction contractors have the right to c onduct drug testing and to establish drug testing policies in ways that suit the needs of their co mpanies and employees. There are many different types of drug testing that can be employed in a companys individual dr ug testing program. Some companies in the industry choose to adopt minimal drug testing policies while others have decided that it is necessary to employ more thor ough testing practices. Re gardless, the types of drug testing commonly found in the construction industry consist of the pre-employment drug screening, random testing, periodic testing, blanket testing, post-accident testing, testing for reasonable cause and follow -up testing (Hinze 2006). Pre-Employment Testing Pre-employment drug screening is a drug testing program that is mandatory for all new hires in a company. If the candi date for hire fails this initia l drug screening, the applicant is typically no longer considered for employment. In some cases, after an extended period of time the candidate that failed the initial drug test ma y be reconsidered for hiring if a follow up drug screen is passed (Hinze 2006). This type of testing was first adopted by the United States military with other agencies in the federal government and many private sector firms following suit shortly thereafter (USDoD). Pre-employment testing is the most common type of testing found in the construction industry. The legality of the pre-employment dr ug testing policy as a condition of employment has been upheld by the courts and is an eff ective practice to keep drug users from gaining employment with the company conducting the te sting. Pre-employment drug screening tests should be given only after the tes ting company has gained the expr essed written consent from the 22

PAGE 23

candidate for employment (Rosen 2000-2002). Construction companies with the minimal drug testing policies typically adopt the pre-employment drug screeni ng as their only preventative measure. Random Testing Random testing is another type of drug te sting which is commonly practiced in the construction industry. The basic principle behind random testing is that if an employee knows there is a chance of being select ed at any time to undergo random drug testing, that person will be discouraged from abusing drugs or alcohol (Hin ze 2006). This particular form of testing is administered randomly or by chance to the employees of a company (Hinze 2006). Each company might have their own protocol as to how employees are randomly selected. Choosing the first or last number of a social security number or selecting from a randomly computer generated list of names are just a few of the ma ny ways in which a contractor might choose to randomly select those employees to be tested. This type of drug te sting has shown to be the most controversial of the testing types as the determination of which employees will be tested might not always be by a truly random selection pro cess (Hinze 2006). It is possible that those responsible for randomly selectin g candidates for testing might be selecting spec ific candidates intentionally while purposefully excluding others within the comp any. Many contractors that do employ drug testing programs choose to conduct random testing for purely financial reasons. A limited number of employees may only be selected for each round of testing. Drug testing costs may range from $30 to $50 or more per test de pending on the type of testing, whether urine, blood, sweat, or hair analysis (Hinze 2006). Thes e costs can add up quickly if a company elects to test all employees each time testing is pe rformed. Many firms have seen the amount of substance abuse decline after institut ing random testing policies (Hinze 2006). 23

PAGE 24

Periodic Testing Drug testing by a company or organization that chooses to test all employees within the company is referred to as blanket testing (H inze 2006). Blanket testing ensures that all employees will be tested for substance abuse when testing is performed. This type of testing practice can become very expensive which can b ecome a barrier to its adoption by construction firms. One of the advantages of blanket drug testing is that it eliminates the controversy sometimes associated with random testing. With blanket testing all employees will be tested eliminating any charges of prefer ential treatment to some and unfairly singling out others. Blanket drug testing falls under the category of periodic testing. Periodic testing can be done at a specific interval or it can be randomly conducted th roughout the year without any workers knowing the timing of the testing. These periodic tests can be administered to all workers, and should include those in manage ment positions as well (Hinze 2006). Many contractors have elected to expa nd this testing to not only workers and management but to home or main office personnel as well. This exte nsion of the testing pr ogram makes workers less reluctant to undergo testing as all employees regardless of rank are required to be tested (Hinze 2006). Post-Accident Testing Post-accident testing is another common type of testing found in the construction industry. This form of testing is self-explanatory as anyone involved in an accident in the workplace will be required to undergo drug testing immediately af ter accident occurrence (Hinze 2006). Test analysis can be conducted in several different forms including urine analysis, saliva testing, sweat testing and blood testing. The test might be administered either on site or in a hospital center, depending on the injury severity. Seve ral of these forms of testing which can be administered in the field can yield immediate results which can then give management the 24

PAGE 25

authority to take the appropriate action as laid out in the company protocol. This company protocol, related to post-accident drug testing, sh ould be clearly stated and be made known to all employees before beginning work. It is also common that an accident on site may be caused by employees that are not injured or by multiple employees or workers not harmed in the accident. In these cases it is advisable to te st any workers who were involved in the task resulting in injury or any other tasks that might have directly or indirectly affect ed or caused the accident (Hinze 2006). This ensures that not just the injured worker is evaluate d for drug use but that all the workers involved in the task were tested. This should be clearly stated in the companys drug testing protocol as well to pr event any confusion or objection to testing by workers who might have been directly or indi rectly involved. The term accident must also be clearly defined in the protocol to clearly explain whether near misses and other non-injury incidents qualify under the post-accident drug testing policy (Hinze 2006). Testing For Reasonable Cause Management might not always wait for unfortuna te circumstances such as on site accidents to decide to drug test workers, management or other employees. Some companies reserve the right to test any employee when they have a suspicion of drug use, usually determined by individual behaviors. Testing for reasonable cause may be deem ed necessary when the actions of a worker or other employee suggest that th e worker or employee may be currently under the influence of some type of drug (Hinze 2006). In th ese cases a drug test will be used to assess the content of an individuals body for certain i llegal substances. The mo st obvious and common reason management will test for reasonable cause is the aftermath of an accident. For many companies the post-accident testing falls unde r the category of reasonable cause testing. According to Hinze (2006), this categorization of post-accident testing under the umbrella of reasonable cause testing programs is not recommended for several reasons. Philosophically, 25

PAGE 26

reasonable cause testing should be instituted as an attempt to establish and maintain a drug-free workplace. Post-accident testing does not aver t an incident before it occurs, although it can reveal that a worker who was under the influence of alcohol or drugs might have contributed to or caused an accident (Hinze 2006). This post-accide nt testing therefore is more of a reactionary policy while reasonable cause testing is clearly more of a preemptive policy. Management may decide to test for reasonable cause for a variety of reasons including but not limited to: moodiness, drowsiness, irritability, lack of assertiveness, disorientation, slurred speech, or a near miss on site. Common behavior traits recorded through job records may also be helpful to management in identifying those employees who may be drug abusers. Such behavior traits as high absenteeis m, increased sick leave, excessive tardiness, excessive breaks, increased instances of reprimand, high or rising in jury rates or a low quality of work can give management a reasonable cause for suspecting drug or alcohol abuse by workers (Hinze 2006). Behaviors are not the only key indicators used by management to establish reasonable cause for drug testing. Physical features may also be impor tant indicators to management that a worker is a substance abuser and warrant a reasonable cause drug test. Some of these features could include sudden weight loss, excessive amounts of perspiration, watery or bloodshot eyes, and poor complexion (Hinze 2006). Reasonable cause dr ug testing protocol s hould be clearly laid out in the company policies and handbook to prevent any confusion or misunderstandings when the policy is actually utilized. Follow-Up Testing After initial testing some companies c hoose to conduct follow up testing. Follow up testing may be conducted for a variety of reasons but is normally reserved for employees who have previously tested positive on a drug test. If a company has chosen to rehire employees after they have participated in a re habilitation program or if they successfully pass a drug test, it is 26

PAGE 27

typical that follow up testing wi ll be conducted to assure mana gement that the rehabilitation program was effective and that the rehabilitate d employee has remained free of drug use. A companys policy may call for only one drug test selected at a randomly selected point in time to assure that the employee has remained drug free, or a series of randomly selected drug tests may be used to further assure management of the employees rehabilitation. In addition to testing rehabilitated employees some companies might el ect to conduct follow up testing on employees who happened to be absent at the time some form of periodic testing was performed. While not as common, this form of follow-up testing can assure management that an employee is not able to avoid testing through absenteeism. Followup testing can also be conducted when an employee shows trace amounts of an illegal su bstance but below the established positive threshold test level (Hinze 2006). Methods of Drug Testing A variety of biological specime ns are being used to screen for drugs in construction. These biological specimens being used in toda ys construction industr y include urine, blood, hair, saliva, and sweat. The biol ogical specimen selected by a cont ractor for drug screening tests can be influenced by a variety of factors in cluding ease of specimen collection, forensic advantages, speed of results, and desired knowle dge of timeline of drug use. The use of urinalysis as a means of testing for substance abuse is currently the mo st pervasive form of testing practiced in the industry (Caplan 2001). To understand drug testing biological specim en, it is important to have a basic understanding of how the body breaks down chem ical compounds (Ultimate Detox 2007). All drugs ingested into the body undergo some form of bio-chemical reac tion within the body. These reactions to drugs within the body release activ e compounds and slowly degrade the drugs into slightly different structures. These de graded structures are called metabolites and are 27

PAGE 28

excreted from the body in a number of different wa ys. The main execratory path for these drugs and their metabolites is thr ough urine (Ultimate Detox 2007). The metabolites found in the excrement of the body are what are primarily tested in the urinalysis. Immunoassay tests are most commonly used to screen the urine sample for the drug metabolites. The Immunoassay tests use the an tibody-antigen relationship to detect the drug metabolites. Specific antibodies are chosen wh ich will bind specifically to drug metabolites. This binding is then tested by using enzymes, fluorescent compounds or radioisotopes (Ultimate Detox 2007). There are three typically used types of immunoassay tests to detect drug use. The enzyme multiplied immunoassay Technique (EMI T) is the most common and cheapest method that uses the previously mentioned enzyme detection method. Radio immunoassay is a method that uses radioactive substances such as iodine is otopes to test for drug use. This form of testing is more sensitive than EMIT and is primarily used by the military. The final form of immunoassay testing is fluorescent pola rization immunoassay which uses fluorescent compounds which detect the bound antibodies and dr ug metabolites. This technique is known to be more accurate than EMIT (Ultimate Det ox 2007). Depending on the testing facility, a contractor that chooses the in itial sampling of urine will us e of one of these forms of immunoassay tests. These immunoassay testing techniques will result in a negative or positive result of drug use, with a positive test indicating recent drug use by the subject. Because immunoassay testing is not the most accurate of testing techniques, samples that test positiv e typically undergo more stringent and accurate testing procedures. Positive tests undergo gas chromatography and mass spectrometry testing to confirm the presence of drugs in the sample. This is a two part test in which gas chromatography separates the sample into parts allowing the mass spectrometry to 28

PAGE 29

then identify specific molecular structures and compounds (Ultimate Detox 2007). This method is considered to be authoritative for the detect ion of drugs or drug metabolites in the biological specimens (Ultimate Detox 2007). The equipment need ed to perform this testing and the testing itself is very expensive which is why it is no t generally used as the initial testing method. Urine Testing Urine testing is the least expensive and most commonly-used form of drug testing and has its advantages and drawbacks. Most drugs are washed out of the body within a few days (Pass Your Test 2003). Marijuana is an exception, as it typically stays in the system for several weeks after the last use. THC, the active compound in marijuana is not a water-soluble substance and sticks to the fatty tissues in the body making it detectable for l onger periods of time (Pass Your Test 2003). Depending on a contract ors needs in a testing program some considerations of the advantages and disadvantages of ur ine specimens should be reviewed. Advantages Urine is easily tested by testing facilities Uniform testing criteria have been created for urine testing, includi ng cutoff or threshold levels (Caplan 2001) The testing results are usually accep ted in a court of law (Caplan 2001) Testing is widely used (Caplan 2001) There is an extensive scie ntific basis for this method of testing (Caplan 2001) Drugs and drug metabolites (when present) can be found in high concentrations in urine specimens (Caplan 2001) Disadvantages Period of detection of drugs is short, t ypically 2 to 3 days (excluding Marijuana) (Caplan 2001) There is no dose-concentra tion relationship established by the test (Caplan 2001) 29

PAGE 30

Drug concentration in the urine specimen can be influenced by the amount of water ingested (Caplan 2001) Urine specimens can be highly susceptible to adulteration and substitution to beat the test (Caplan 2001) Sweat Testing While urinalysis is the most widely used method for drug testing in the construction industry, there are severa l other alternative methods which can be used. One recent innovation in drug testing is the development of sweat te sting for substance abuse. Sweat testing is primarily done by having the subject wear a gauz e patch on the skin which will detect drugs or drug metabolites as they are excreted through perspiration (Ultimate Detox 2007). The patch consists of several different layers which act as a specimen container for perspiration. The sweat is collected in an absorbent pad located in the center of the patch. Nonvolatile substances from the outside environment are not allowed to penetr ate the thin transparent film over the patch to taint the specimen. A semi-permeable membra ne located over the pad allows carbon dioxide, water and oxygen to pass through the patch to leave the skin undernea th unharmed. After a period of several days the sweat is allowed to saturate the pad and concentrate within it. At this time the patch may be removed, and the patch is tested for the pres ence of drugs and drug metabolites (Kintz 1996). After the patch is removed it will undergo the same process of testing as urine specimens, an immunoassay test followed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry if necessary. Sweat tests have not been widely adopted as a drug test in the workplace at this time (Caplan 2001). These tests are mostly used in the monitoring of those who have undergone drug rehabilitation programs or those who are invo lved in probation or parole programs (Caplan 2001). Contractors may find use for this testing method when hiring or rehiring those who have 30

PAGE 31

had previous drug or alcohol problems or have recently undergone rehabilitation. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of testing sweat specimens in drug testing include: Advantages Testing will provide a measure of cu mulative drug exposure (Caplan 2001) This allows the ability to observe the inta ke of drugs over a period of days to weeks (Caplan 2001) It can detect parent drugs and metabolites (Caplan 2001) It is a form of noninvasive specimen collection (Caplan 2001) The collection device is almost tamper-proof (Caplan 2001) Disadvantages There can be large variations in sweat productio n (Caplan 2001) The specimen volume is unknown before removing the patch (Caplan 2001) There are a limited number of collection devices (Caplan 2001) There is high variability between subjects (Caplan 2001) The specimen collector can be i nvoluntarily removed (Caplan 2001) There is a risk that the specimen can be ta inted if the collecti on device is improperly applied or removed (Caplan 2001) The test is incapable of detec ting prior exposure (Caplan 2001) Saliva Testing The collection of saliva as a bi ological specimen to test for substance abuse has also found increasing use. The term oral fluid is a mo re accurate definition of the specimen according to the United States Drug Testing Advisory Board (K intz 2002). Saliva is secreted by the salivary glands, whereas the oral fluid used in the te sting procedure contains mucosal transudate and crevicular fluid as well (Kintz 2002). The oral fluid collected for drug testing is collected in two 31

PAGE 32

ways; by spitting into a collection device or by swabbing the oral ca vity. Spitting as a method of collection can sometimes be problematic as subjec ts may experience drym outh or the collected sample can be too viscous which can complicat e analysis (Kintz 2002). For subjects that experience drymouth, salivation ca n be facilitated by placing sour candy or citric acid into the mouth. Chewing on an inert substance such as Te flon has also shown to stimulate salivation to facilitate the collection of oral fluid (Kintz 2002). The oral fluid sample may also be collected through the use of a dental cotton swab rolled through the mouth against the oral cavity walls. Testing of saliva or oral fluid is an effec tive way to test for very recent drug use. The nature of the test makes it a good testing method for point of collection drug testing (POTC) or on site testing. The advantages a nd disadvantages of oral fluid te sting for contractors include: Advantages Oral fluid testing is valuable for test ing for recent substance abuse (Caplan 2001) It can test for metabolites as well as parent drugs Collection of the specimen may easily be obs erved to prevent ta mpering (Caplan 2001) Results may be related to perf ormance/behavior (Caplan 2001) Collection of the specimen is readily accessible (Caplan 2001) Disadvantages Detection of the window of drug use may be s horter than other form s of testing (Caplan 2001) There can be contamination following oral, smoked, and intranasal means of drug use (Caplan 2001) The collection of specimen volume may be dependant on the specific device or brand (Caplan 2001) 32

PAGE 33

Hair Testing Hair as a biological specimen provides the most long-term detection of drug use. Unlike all the other biological specimens previously me ntioned, in which the me tabolites and drugs have a very limited stay in the body, hair provides a long term picture and measure of drug use (Caplan 2001). Whereas many other forms of te sting cannot tell the difference between a single exposure to a drug and chronic use of a drug, hair testing can. Hair is a substance created by different organs. The skin is composed of protein, water, lipids and minerals (Kintz et al 2006). It is not known exactly by what mechanism chemicals are bound into the hair, but it is generally believed that drugs or their metabolit es enter into the hair in at least 3 stages (Kintz et al 2006). It is believed that the mechanisms through which the metabolites enter the hair are through the blood dur ing the formation of the hair, from sweat and sebum or from the external envir onment (Kintz et al). Regardless of how these substances enter the hair, the specimen is able to be tested for drug use. The procedure for collecting a hair specimen ha s not been standardized. In most studies of hair testing the specimen is collected from the area near the back of the head referred to as the vertex posterior (Kintz et al 2006). The published reasons for this method are that Compared with other areas of the head, this area has less variability in the ha ir growth rate, the number of hairs in the growing phase is more constant and the hair is less subject to ageand sex-related influences (Kintz et al 2006). Sa mple sizes used in testing range from one hair to 200 mg of hair (Kintz et al 2006). These sa mple hairs to be used in testing are than cut into lengths of about 1, 2 or 3 cm to correspond with about 1, 2 or 3 mont hs of hair growth (Kintz et al 2006). If the subject to be tested does not have any hair located on the scalp, other body hair may be substituted as an acceptable testing specimen (Kintz et al 2006). 33

PAGE 34

Once the hair has been collected, the laborat ory conducting the testing will wash the hair to prevent a false positive test due to external environmental c ontaminants (Kintz et al 2006). Once the hair has been decontaminated, the hair or hairs are pulverized in a ball-mill or broken into smaller pieces (Kintz et al 2006). After th is process, hair specimens go through a hydrolysis step or are dissolved whole in order to enhance drug solubilization (Kintz et al 2006). The final step is to extract or purify the drug from the incubization medium for further analysis (Kintz et al 2006). Hair testing provides the most long term detection of drug use. To evaluate an extended period of drug detection and a retr ospective calendar of the subjects drug use, this is the most effective test. Contractors might not be interest ed in the drug use of an employee or potential new hires drug use from several months ago. Prior to the test, it is important for contractors to determine their needs in a drug testing program and to consid er the test advantages and disadvantages. Advantages Testing evaluates a much longer period for drug use (Caplan 2001) Testing can detect parent drugs and metabolites (Caplan 2001) Collection of the testing specime n can be observed (Caplan 2001) Specimens may be easily obtained, stored, and shipped (Caplan 2001) A second identical specimen can be obtained from the original source (Caplan 2001) Collection of the specimen is not intrusive Disadvantages Inability to detect recent drug use (Caplan 2001) Testing results can be biased due to differe nces in hair color and texture (Caplan 2001) 34

PAGE 35

There is potential for envir onmental contamination for some classes of drugs (Caplan 2001) Hair is susceptible to adulteration before the specimen can be collected (Caplan 2001) Adulterants in Drug Testing With the increased popularity of drug testing as a means to ensure drug-free workplaces, an expanding market has developed for products th at promise to beat the drug tests. These products are commercially produced adulterants as well as common household cleaners. These adulterants allow substance abusers to go undetect ed in drug tests. The National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP), the organization that oversees the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs, has identified over 400 products specifically marketed to beat a drug test (Bush 2007). Thes e adulterants are readily available through many sources including internet websites, novelty shops, smoking shops, magazines and dietary supplement retailers (Bush 2007). These products marketed as drug test a dulterants consist of three main types: 1) dilution and cleansing produ cts, 2) adulteration additives and 3) substitute urine products (Bush 2007). The dilution and cleansing products are mos tly teas and drinks, and other forms of diuretics which are consumed with extremely larg e quantities of water. These adulterants are meant to dilute the urine sufficiently that the concentration of any drug or metabolite in the specimen will be below the standardized cutoff le vels. These products work by diluting the urine while it is still in the bladder (Bush 2007). The second types of products used to beat dr ug tests are adulterati on additives. These additives are chemical compounds which are designed to be put into the urine sample after it has been expelled into the collec tion vessel. These products are typically packaged in small 35

PAGE 36

containers so that they can be easily hidden on ones body or cl othes and not be detected by whoever is administering the test. The use of these adulterants can easily be prevented by having an attentive observer present while the person is providing the specimen fo r testing. Some of these products are effective but are also detectable in the urine specimen; others are effective and not detectable, and some are not effective at all (Bush 2007). The final type of product typically used to beat drug tests is the substitute urine product. These products consist of prosth etic devices, catheters, reservoi rs, and fluids specifically formulated to resemble urine (Bush 2007). Some of these devices that use prosthetics deliver the urine or synthetic fluid through a color-match ed fake penis (Bush 2007). This can make detection extremely difficult even when under direct supervision by an observer. Common household chemicals have been known to effectively produce false negatives in drug tests. Some of these produc ts include bleach, Visine eye drops, ascorbic acid, golden seal root, vinegar, and lime solvent. Marijuana and opiat es have shown to be effected by bleach as an adulterant (Bush 2007). These chemicals are readily available to anyone and have been used to beat the test in the past. Alternative specimens such as hair, blood and saliva have also had adulteration products created to beat the test. Adulte rants for drug testing of hair incl ude shampoos and spritzes to be applied prior to specimen colle ction. Mouthwashes and other cleaners have likewise been created to beat the oral fluid drug test. Fo r blood tests, whole body washes are marketed and used to beat drug tests (Bush 2007) Drug testing facilities have been detecti ng adulterants as they are created and are adjusting their procedures to c ounter their use (Bush 2007). When the adulterants are detected, the manufacturers of these products typically ch ange their formula to one not seen before by 36

PAGE 37

drug testing facilities. The facili ties continue to dete ct new adulterants and the manufacturers of these products continue to alter their formulas (B ush 2007). It is foreseeable that as long as drug testing is practiced, adulterants will be produce d, adulterants will be detected, and adulterants will be reformulated, creating a never ending cycle. Developing and Implementi ng a Drug Testing Policy When implementing a drug-free workplace policy it is important for contractors to take a number of issues under consideration, the most important of these being the organization of the program. Because drug testing is such a strate gic company-wide issue affecting employee and public safety, the company bottom line, and an organizations overall competitiveness it is important to have everyone on board and invol ved. Company-wide accep tance and involvement across all levels from CEO to risk management and employees, is crucial to the implementation and continuation of a successful drug testing program (Cholakis 2006). Drug testing programs must be legal, fair to all in the company, fully documented, administered by professionals, and clearly communi cated to all in order to prevent any legal entanglements from arising (Cholakis 2006). Contractors, before implementing drug testing programs, should examine the drug testing guidelin es in the state(s) of operation, and conduct their programs according to these laws. Many st ates do have drug testing guidelines which lay out what an employer can and cannot do and these should be followed to avoid any legal complications (Cholakis 2006). Contractors should determine wh ich type of drug testing is appropriate for their firm. Ease of use, timeline of drug use, and immediacy of results are all factor s to be considered. Clearly developing a written dr ug testing program is essential to establishing a drug-free workplace. Any contractor implementing a drug -free workplace policy should have the program guidelines clearly written, distributed to all em ployees in the organiza tion and duly signed to 37

PAGE 38

clearly show acknowledgement of the policies. The written po licy should make clear that substance abuse is unacceptable and has detrimen tal effects to the economic and social standing of the company and to the safety of all those present in the workplace. The communication of the program should be reinforced with educati onal and orientation prog rams for all employees (Cholakis 2006). Documentation should also be kept of all drug testing records to measure and report the success of the program. These steps ca n avoid any legal issues that might arise involving the drug testing program. The initiation of a successful drug testing pol icy should come down to four simple steps: 1. Gain companywide support from senior management to the field workers (Concrete Construction 2006) 2. Develop a clearly written drug-free workplace policy (Concrete Construction 2006) 3. Establish the program objectives (Concrete Construction 2006) 4. Measure and report the su ccess of the program (Conc rete Construction 2006) 38

PAGE 39

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Overview This study was designed to investigate th e use of drug testing practices in the construction industry. The goals of this research were as follows: 1) to determine the extent that drug testing programs are used in the construc tion industry, 2) to id entify the drug testing practices that are being used: pre-employment testing, random testing, blanket testing, postaccident testing or some combination of these, 3) to determine the manner of testing being used; urine, hair, saliva, blood, sweat or some comb ination of these, 4) to determine the most frequently abused substances in the construction industry and 5) to determine the prevalence of cheating on drug tests, along with types of adulterants used. This study was meant to provide information that would be beneficial to cons truction contractors in the United States and therefore the study solely focused on U.S. cont ractors and the U.S. c onstruction industry. Development of Survey Drug testing programs have become a prev alent and widely-accepted tool to keep companies safer, more productive and more profitable. Both the public and private sector have increasingly been putting drug-free workplace programs into effect. The question arose as to the level the construction industry had accepted the move toward establishing drug-free workplaces? Previous studies had examined the extent that construction companies had begun to implement drug testing, but none had looked at the current level of drug tes ting programs in the construction industry. Drug testing technology has also improved and evolved since prior studies were conducted, and the implementation of these new t echnologies had not yet been examined. To determine the direction a nd scope of the study several questions were posed: What is the current level of implementation of drug testing programs in the construction industry? 39

PAGE 40

What are the specific drug testing practices being used in these drug testing programs: pre-employment, random, blanket, post-acci dent or some combination of these? What manner of testing is being performed in drug testing programs? Are the uses of alternative testing methods being utilized; and if so, to what degree? What are the perceptions of a lternative testing methods such as hair, sweat, saliva, or blood testing by the co nstruction industry? What are the most comm only abused substances? Is the practice of cheating on drug test s believed to be prevalent? When cheating on drug tests is practiced, wh at kinds of adulterants are being used? What are the consequences for employees testing positive on drug tests? As these questions were posed, the directi on and scope of the study began to become apparent. It was decided that a current study would provide usef ul information on the type of drug testing programs that have been implemented in the construction indu stry and the manner of testing that is being used. A preliminary surv ey was designed using th e above questions as a foundation. Several construction cont ractors were contacted to revi ew the survey questions that were developed, and they provided feedback on the merit of the inquiries and suggested additional questions or issues that might be pe rtinent to this study. The Construction Industry Institute (CII) Safety Community of Practice was also contact ed to provide feedback and suggestions on the survey questionnaire. After co nsidering all suggestions and feedback, a final survey questionnaire was created as a tool to acquire the data. It was decided that all participants in the survey would remain anonym ous for privacy and legal reasons. Explanation of Survey The three-page survey consisted of six main parts which will be described in full. The final survey distributed is presented in Appendix A. 40

PAGE 41

Part 1: Drug Testing Practices The purpose of the first part of the survey wa s to determine the size of the company being surveyed, the number of workers employed and th e type of drug testing program being used by the contracting company. The prevalence of the use of pre-employment drug screening was examined, as well as the percentage of positive te st results currently and five years ago. The survey participant was also asked if they conducted random testing, and if so, what the incidences of positive results were. Further information was requested to determine how contractors selected the employees to be tested in random screen ing. This question solicited a write in response as there can be a variety of methods of randomly selecting employees to be tested. The percentage of the workforce screened during random testing was asked as well. An answer of 100% constituted a blanket drug scre ening policy. Information on the manner of random testing was also requested. Similar ques tions were asked about post-accident testing. Part 2: Manner of Testing All participants were asked whether they had used the alternative te sting methods of hair, saliva, and sweat. The companys views or opinions of these alternative ma nners of testing were requested. A choice of several re sponses was given and respondents were asked to mark all that applied. A space was also provided to write in additional comments if none of the given responses were appropriate. Part 3: Substances Abused Respondents are asked to identify the first and second most abused drug according to positive drug testing results currently and five years ago. Spaces were given for respondents to write the appropriate answer. 41

PAGE 42

Part 4: Workers Compensation Questions were asked about workers compensation benefits and premiums in the states where the contractors are licen sed to operate, especially th ose that provided discounts on workers compensation premiums where an e ffective drug-free workplace was implemented. They were also asked to identify states where workers compensation benefits were denied when injured workers tested positive for drugs. Part 5: Use of Adulterants To understand the use of adulterants to beat drug tests, questions were asked regarding adulterants. Respondents were asked how extens ive cheating was perceived to be and whether or not adulterants were screened for in the drug tests administered. A follow-up write-in question was asked to gather a list of both commercially-marketed and household adulterants that have been detected in dr ug tests. It was also asked wh ether or not urine samples were temperature checked to test for tampering. Part 6: Consequences of Positive Tests A question was asked about the consequences for an employee who fails a drug test. Three responses were given and the respondent was asked to check the one that applied to their company drug-free workplace policy. An additiona l space was provided to allow the respondent to write in any additional information about th e companys drug testing experience that was not addressed in any of the previous questions. An additional section was added at the conclusion of the survey to provide contact information. The purpose of this was to give th e respondents an opportunity to request a copy of the research findings. Respondent s were assured that their name s and addresses would remain confidential and would only be viewed by thos e directly involved in the research. 42

PAGE 43

Summary The research objectives were to gather info rmation on current drug testing practices in the construction industry and the ex tent that alternativ e testing is being adopted. The results should provide the most widely used testing pr actices from pre-employment to post-accident testing. The responses were also provide an idea of the level of a doption and acceptance of alternative testing techniques and the percep tion of these various means of testing. Distribution of the Survey The University of Florida Institutional Review Board approved the survey questionnaire before its distribution. After the survey was revi ewed and finalized, it was sent out in a variety of ways. The survey was initially sent to a me mber of the Board of Safety Execution who then distributed it to other members of the board that represented individual co nstruction contractors. A number of companies with prior or long standi ng relationships with the University of Florida Rinker School of Building Construction were cont acted by phone and asked to participate in the study. Those agreeing to participate by comple ting the survey were then e-mailed the drug testing survey. The remainder of the surveys distributed was se nt to construction contractors listed in the Blue Book of Building Construction by standard U.S. mail. A copy of the survey was sent to these respondents al ong with a postage paid post-marked envelope to be returned to the University of Florida School of Building Cons truction after completion. None of the surveys were addressed to a specific i ndividual as different companie s appointed people in different positions to maintain thier drug testing programs. Data Collection and Recording Results from the surveys were analyzed a nd given numeric values. The Microsoft Excel program was used to organize the data. A Mi crosoft Excel spreadsheet was created with columns pertaining to each individual response to questions on the survey. Each answer choice 43

PAGE 44

to a question was assigned a numerical value a nd entered under the column pertaining to the question. All survey results were entered into th e spreadsheet using this process to organize the questions and answers and to standardize the resu lts. Once all survey results were entered into the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, the organized data were transferred to the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. This program formulated the analysis of the data according to the parameters the researcher set fo rth and generated the statistical analysis and tables presented in the results chapter. 44

PAGE 45

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS A total of 450 surveys were distributed by mail to contractors located throughout the continental United States. Completed surveys were received from 61 companies with a response rate of 13.5 percent. Questions were asked regarding th e size of the responding companies. Respondents were asked to provide the annual vo lume of business (in millions of dollars) for the fiscal year. The annual volume of business ranged from a low of $600,000 to a high value exceeding $10,000,000,000. The me dian annual volume reported was $75,000,000. For the purposes of this research small construction firms were defined as those respondents reporting an annual volum e of less than 15 million dollars, medium size firms were those companies reporting between 15 and 150 million dollars and large companies were defined as those construction firms reporting an annual volume of over 150 million dollars (Table 4.1). Respondents were also asked to provid e an estimate on the number of field employees currently employed with their fi rm. The number of field employees ranged from a low value of zero (field employees ) to a high value of 20,000 field employees. The median number of field employees re ported was 45 field employees (Table 4.2). Table 4.1: Annual Dollar Volume of Business of Responding Firms VOLUME OF FIRM (IN MILLIONS) NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE .50 5 13 21.3 5.1 15 7 11.4 15.1 150 16 26.2 150.1 3000 13 21.3 3000 + 12 19.6 TOTAL 59 100 45

PAGE 46

Table 4.2: Number of Field Employees Number of field employees Number of respondents Percentage 0 2 1.7 1 15 19 31.8 16 125 18 30.5 126 2000 12 19.6 2000 + 10 16.4 Total 61 100 The survey submitted to all respondents al so requested the company to state their OSHA recordable injury rate. This inform ation was requested so that it could be correlated with some of the other information received in order to conduct a more thorough analysis of the data gathered. All respondents were asked to write this information in. Pre-employment Testing Respondents were asked about the implem entation of the different types of drug testing on their construction sites. Eighty-ei ght percent of the respondents indicated that they conducted pre-employment drug testing as a condition of employment. Respondents were asked about the percentage of worker s who received pre-em ployment testing. Of those firms that implemented pre-employment drug testing, over nine ty percent required all new employees to pass the drug test as a condition of employment. The remaining respondents required varying percentages of th eir employees to pass the pre-employment drug tests, but no information was provided on the criteria used to determine which new employees would have to first pass the preemployment drug test and which ones would not be subjected to the preemployment drug test. Additional information was requested re garding the results of pre-employment testing. Respondents were asked to disclose the current percentages of positive test 46

PAGE 47

results on pre-employment tests. Overall, the current experience of the respondents was that an average of 5.3 percent (median of 2 percent) of the pre-employment tests were positive. To assess any possible changes in the experiences of companies regarding the number of positive test results over time, the respondents were asked about the companys experience of the pe rcentages of positive pre-empl oyment test results five years ago. The experience five years ago was that an average of 8.9 percent (median of 3.8 percent) of the pre-empl oyment drug tests was positive. The responses to the questions on positive test results on pre-employment tests were examined further to evaluate the nature of any changes that had been observed regarding drug use (Figure 4.1). 26.3 10.5 26.3 10.6 21.1 36.8 10.5 13.1 10.5 15.8 5.3 13.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Percentage of Responses 0 1-23-45-78-10>10 Percent Positive Current 5 Years Ago Figure 4.1: Comparison of curre nt percent positive pre-employ ment tests vs. 5 years ago (based on 52 responses) 47

PAGE 48

Random Testing Respondents were asked if they conducted some form of random testing as part of their company-wide drug testing program. Two-thirds (66.7%) of the respondents indicated that they conducted rando m drug tests of their employees. Each respondent was asked about the per centage of positive test results on random tests. Respondents were asked to report the percentage of positive results found on random drug tests. Overall, the current experi ence of the respondents was that an average of 2.23 percent (median of 1.5 percent) of the random tests was positive. To assess any possible changes in the experiences of companies regarding the number of positive test results over time, the respondents were aske d about the companys experience of the percentages of positive random test results five years ago. The experience five years ago was that an average of 5.2 percent (median of 2.5 percent) of the random drug tests was positive. The responses to the questions on positive test results on random tests were examined further to evaluate the nature of any changes that had been observed regarding drug use. Figure 4.2 summarizes the findings of the current percentages of positive results on random tests in rela tion to the percentages of pos itive results on random tests five years ago. The percent of positive results on random drug tests tends to be either the same as or less than it was five years ago. Additional information was requested rega rding the portion of the workforce which is tested at one time during random testing. Si nce testing the entire workforce can be cost prohibitive, many contractors elect to test a portion of the workforce by randomly selecting those workers to be tested (typically tested each month). Respondents that did conduct random testing were asked to disclose what percentage of their workforce was tested in accordance with their companys drug-free workplace pr ogram. Overall, the 48

PAGE 49

percentages being tested ranged from a lo w of 1% to a high of 100%. The median percentage tested was 20% of the workfor ce with an average of 37% (Table 4.3). Figure 4.2: Percentage of positive results in random testing currently vs. 5 years ago Table 4.3: Percentage of the Work force Tested for Random Drug Tests Percentage of workforce tested random ly Number of respondents Percentage 0 5 11.9 1 9 7 16.7 10 19 8 19 20 99 12 28.6 100 10 23.8 Total 42 100 Information was requested regarding the tes ting of office and mana gerial personnel. Respondents were asked whether or not manage ment and office personnel were subject to random drug testing in the same manner as fi eld workers. Over 70% of the respondents stated that they included office and mana gement personnel in the random selection of employees for drug testing (Table 4.4). 49

PAGE 50

Table 4.4: Are Management and Office Personnel Subject to Random Drug Tests Number of respondents Percentage Yes 36 73.5 No 13 26.5 To obtain additional information about random drug testing, respondents were asked about the random selection process. Respondents that conducted random tests were asked to write a brief description of how the random selection of employees was made. Some of the methods given are as follows: Computer programs randomly select employees to be tested A third party testing facility randomly selects employees through a computergenerated list The insurance carrier randomly selects employ ees to generate the list of employees to be tested Employees are selected randomly by position Employees are selected randomly by the last two digits of thei r social security number Employees are selected randomly by drawing names out of a hat The most frequent means of randomly se lecting employees to be tested was observed as being through a randomly generated list of names through a third party drug testing facilitator. Respondents were asked about the method of testing they used from several types of drug testing listed on the survey. Essentia lly, this referred to the type of sample(s) collected, whether urine, sweat, hair or sa liva. Respondents were asked to check all choices that applied to their random testing program. When it was appropriate, more than one selection was to be made (Figure 4.3). 50

PAGE 51

Figure 4.3: What type of random tests are given Respondents were asked about the number of panels that we re used in their random drug testing kits. No t all respondents that conducte d random testing were aware of the number of panels in their tests or c hose not to share this information. The number of panels in random tests ranged from a low va lue of 5 panels to a high value of 14 with 7 being the median number of panels (Table 4.5). Table 4.5: Number of Pane ls in Random Tests Number of panels Number of respondents Percentage 5 13 40.6 6 2 6.3 7 6 18.8 8 1 3.1 9 4 12.5 10 5 15.6 14 1 3.1 Total 32 100 51

PAGE 52

Post-Accident Testing Post-accident testing is also a common form of drug testing found in the construction industry. Respondents were aske d to provide the percentages of positive results on the post-accident tests. Responses ranged from a low value of zero positive results to a high value of 70% positive re sults on post-accident tests. The mean percentage of positive results was 5.5% while the median positive result was 1% (Figure 4.4). Figure 4.4: Percentage of positiv e tests on post-accident testing (Based on48 Responses) Respondents were asked if post-accident testing was conducted immediately after accident occurrence. All (100 percent) of respondents indicated that post-accident testing was conducted immediately after accidents occurred. Respon dents were asked about the type of specimen (urine, saliva, hair or blood) normally collected for post-accident tests. Respondents were asked to check more than one choice if it was a ppropriate for their companys policy. Urine tes ting was the most common method for post-accident testing, being employed by 74% of the respondents (Figure 4.5). Eighteen other respondents used urine analysis and either blood tests, sa liva tests or hair an alysis to detect the 52

PAGE 53

presence of drugs. Companies that employ ex clusively blood tests a nd saliva tests used them primarily to detect the presence of alcohol Urine & Blood, 4% Urine & Saliva, 12% Urine & Hair, 2% Blood, 6% Hair, 0% Saliva, 2% Urine, 74% Figure 4.5: Type of specimen co llected for post-accident testing In addition to the type of post-accident testing conducted, respondents were asked to state how many panels were used in thei r companys post-accident testing kits. The most common number of panels found in postaccident tests was 5, with 6 panels being the median value (Table 4.6): Table 4.6 Number of Panels in Post-Accident Testing Number of panels Number of respondents Percentage 2 1 2.5 3 1 2.5 5 17 44 7 6 15 8 3 7.5 9 4 11 10 6 15 14 1 2.5 Total 39 100 53

PAGE 54

Respondents were asked what percentages of their post-acciden t drug test results were available within minutes. These rapid tests were used by more than half (51%) of the respondents (Table 4.7). Respondents were asked if positive test results on the rapid test would result in the specimen being sent to a separate laboratory for confirmation or verification that the test is positive. Nearly 80% of all res pondents indicated that positive post-accident test results were verified by a separate laboratory. Table 4.7: Percentage of Tests with Results Available Within Minutes Range of percentages given Numb er of respondents Percentages 0 26 51 1 50 5 9.8 51 99 10 19.6 100 (rapid test) 10 19.6 Total 51 100 Drugs Detected through Testing The survey asked a series of questions regarding current and past drug testing results to identify the types of drugs bei ng abused by employees in the construction industry. Respondents were asked to name the drug most commonly abused according to recent drug test results. Respondents were al so asked about the most frequently abused drug based on tests conducted five years a go. The results identified marijuana as the most commonly abused drug and this was true for current drug testing and for testing conducted five year ago (Figure 4.6). The survey also asked respondents to id entify the second most commonly abused drug. This was identified as cocaine for both the recent experiences and for five years ago (Figure 4.7). 54

PAGE 55

Figure 4.6: The most frequently ab used drug currently vs. 5 years ago Figure 4.7: The second most frequently abused drug currently vs. 5 years ago Cheating on Drug Tests and Adulterant Use Construction safety experts had indicated to this rese archer that cheating on drug tests had increased in recent ye ars. It is not known exactly ho w prevalent this practice is. Respondents were asked a series of questions to gauge how extensive the practice of cheating has become, what employers percep tions of cheating are, how is cheating detected and what ways of cheating the te sts have been observed. Respondents were 55

PAGE 56

initially asked about their perception of how prevalent cheating on dr ug tests is in their company. The majority of the respondents (over 50%) cited cheating as being a practice used by employees only occasionally (Table 4.8). Respondents were asked to estimate the percentage value for drug tests on which they suspected cheating. Responses ranged from zero instances of cheating suspected at the lowest level to 85% of tests with suspected cheating at the highest level. The median was 12% (Table 4.9). Table 4.8: In your opinion, how extens ive is cheating on drug tests How extensive is cheating Number of respondents Percentage None 8 15.1 Only Occasionally 29 54.7 Fairly Common (major concern for us) 16 30.2 Total 53 100 Table 4.9: On what percentage of wo rker drug tests is cheating suspected Range of percentage suspected Nu mber of respondents Percentage 0 11 22 0.01 1 10 20 1.01 5 12 24 5.01 10 5 10 10.01 50 11 22 50.01 -85 1 2 Total 50 100 Cheating has been observed by some when employees attempt to exchange a clean urine specimen for their own (seeming tainted) urine specimen. One way in which this form of cheating can be avoided is by testing the urine sample temperature when it is received. Respondents were asked if it is their policy to temperature check urine samples to avoid cheating. A majority of respondents (nearly 92%) indicated that urine tests were temperature checked. Adulte rants are the substances used to beat the drug tests. Respondents were as ked if the drug tests that ar e administered to employees are also checked for the presence of adulterants. The majority of respondents (over 70%) 56

PAGE 57

indicated that they tested for adultera nts in each specimen collected. Additional information was requested from respondents re garding the types of adulterants that had been detected to beat the drug tests. Some of the responses given are as follows: Creatine has been used as an adulterant in urine Bleach used in urine specimens Dog and cat urine has been swapped for human urine The Wizzinator or other commercially marketed adulterants have been used Various nitrates have been used Vinegar, water and other common household products have been used Alternative Test Methods Urine tests have been established as the mo st frequently used fo rm of drug testing in drug-free workplace programs. Alternative test methods include the analysis of hair, sweat, blood and saliva for the presence of drugs. These tests are available to the construction industry as a means of conducti ng employee drug testing. A series of questions were asked to measure how exte nsively these alternative methods of drug testing were being used in the construction industry. Respondents were asked to provide information as to whether their company conduc ted hair analysis as an alternative method of drug testing. Nearly twelve percent of th e respondents indicated th at they had some of their drug tests conducted by hair analysis. Respondents were asked to share their compa nys views of hair testing as a type of alternative drug test. A series of choices was provided for the respondents and they were asked to check the statement or statements that best described the companys attitudes towards hair analysis. Respondents were also provided with space in which to write 57

PAGE 58

additional comments to more fully reflect their views on hair analysis. The most common response given for the companys vi ew of hair testing was, We dont know enough about these tests to try them (see Table 4.10). Table 4.10: What is the companys view of hair analysis testing Company view Number of respondents* We dont know enough about these test to try them 27 These tests are prohibitively expensive 9 We dont use these tests because the results do not give the time frame of drug use 6 These tests seem to be good but wee have not tried them 3 We are using these tests and are pleased with the results 2 We feel these test are unreliable 0 These tests are promising and we will try them in the near future 0 Other Comment 11 Total 48 *Note: Some respondents selected more than one choice Testing saliva or oral fluids as an alternative drug testing method has been introduced in recent years. Similar to hair analysis, respondents were asked a series of questions to gauge how extensively saliva te sting is being used in the construction industry. Respondents were asked if they ha d used saliva testing in their company specifically for alcohol detection. Of the 60 respondents that answered this question, nearly one-fourth (23%) indi cated that their company has used saliva tests for alcohol detection. Respondents were asked to give their companys views on saliva testing for alcohol as an alternative testing method and wh ether they had used this method of testing or not. A series of choices, similar to thos e provided for the views on hair analysis, were provided, along with space in which to provide additional information. Of the choices available, the most frequently-selected ( 21 respondents) statement to explain the companys view of saliva testing for alcoho l was that they did not know enough about the 58

PAGE 59

test to try them, with the second most popular (11 responses) c hoice being that the company was currently using the tests and was pleased with the results (see Table 4.11). Table 4.11: What is the company view of saliva tests for alcohol Company view Number of respondents* We dont know enough about these test to try them 21 We are using these tests and ar e pleased with the results 11 We use a Breathalyzer test instead 8 These tests seem to be good but wee have not tried them 3 These tests are promising and we will try them in the near future 2 We feel these test are unreliable 1 These tests are prohibitively expensive 1 Other Comment 15 *Note: Some respondents selected more than one choice Saliva or oral fluid testing can also be used to test for drug use, not just the presence of alcohol. Respondents were asked if they had used saliva testing to detect drug use and what their company views were re garding this type of alternative test. When asked if their company had used these tests, 15% of the respondents indicated that their company had used saliva tests for drug detection. Various statements were provided from which the respondents were to select the most applicable to describe the companys views about saliva testi ng as a drug detection method. A space was also provided for any additional comments. The most common selection was We dont know enough about saliv a tests to try them (see Table 4.12). Table 4.12: What is the companys view of saliva tests for drugs Company view Number of respondents* We dont know enough about these test to try them 24 We feel these test are unreliable 7 We are using these tests and are pleased with the results 6 These tests seem to be good but wee have not tried them 5 These tests are prohibitively expensive 3 These tests are promising and we will try them in the near future 2 Other Comment 8 59

PAGE 60

*Note: Some respondents selected more than one choice The final means of alternative drug test th at respondents were asked about was the use of sweat as a specimen for conducting drug tests. When asked about the use of sweat tests, none (zero) of the res pondents indicated that they had used sweat tests for drugs. Respondents were asked to give their companys views regarding sweat tests regardless of whether they had used this form of testing or not. A series of choices, similar to the statements associated with th e other questions on alte rnative tests, were provided for the respondents to select. Of all statements, the view that We dont know enough about these tests to try them was the mo st frequently selected (see Table 4.13). Table 4.13: What is the company s view of sweat tests for drugs Company view Number of respondents We dont know enough about these test to try them 42 These tests seem to be good but wee have not tried them 1 We feel these test are unreliable These tests are prohibitively expensive 0 These tests are promising and we will try them in the near future 0 We are using these tests and are pleased with the results 0 Other Comment 0 Workers Compensation As was mentioned previously, drug use a nd drug testing policy can be directly related to workers compensation benefits. The survey containe d two questions about workers compensation benefits as influenced by workers testing pos itive for drugs. The first question asked respondent s to identify those states in which the company had worked where workers compensation benefits could be denied to injured workers who tested positive for drug use. Some responde nts apparently had not worked in states 60

PAGE 61

where such benefits could be denied due to drug use or they were not aware of such practices. Some simply stated that there were many states where workers compensation benefits are denied when injured workers test positive for drug use. The state of Florida was mentioned most frequently. The states th at were specifically mentioned by at least one respondent each were as follows: Florida Nevada Ohio Delaware Arizona Maryland Arkansas Missouri Illinois Georgia California Another question about wo rkers compensation asked respondents to identify states where they had performed work in which workers compensation premiums were reduced when companies had implemented a drug-free workplace program. Similar to the responses to the prior question, the states included in the responses were the following: Florida Nevada 61

PAGE 62

Ohio Delaware Arizona Maryland Arkansas Missouri Illinois Georgia California Additional Analysis When comparing OSHA RIR of the responde nts it was noticed that there was a correlation between positive drug testing resu lts and increased accident rates. After analyzing the results of company RIR and percentages of positive results of drug tests it became apparent that increased drug use is di rectly related to an increase in on the job accidents. Companies with less than 2% positive post accident and random drug testing results showed a decreased average OSHA RIR than companies with 2% or greater positive post accident and random drug testing results The results of this analysis of the relationship between positive testing results and OSHA RIR may be seen in Table 4.14. Table 4.14: Positive Test Results and OSHA RIRs Post-accident testing Random testing % Positive Less than 2% 1.16 1.27 % Positive Greater than or equal to 2% 2.59 2.72 62

PAGE 63

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Drug and alcohol abuse is a serious con cern for any industry. The dangerous nature of the construction industry makes subs tance abuse an even greater concern than in most other American industries. These concerns created by drug and alcohol abuse may be effectively alleviated by the impl ementation of a drug testing policy. The construction industry has been increasingl y accepting workplace drug testing as an effective way of curbing the negative effects of drug and alcohol abuse. The research findings show that drug test ing in the constructi on industry has been successful in lowering incident rates on site and that positive test results have dropped in the past five years, presumably from the in creased acceptance and uti lization of drug free workplace programs. The results show that the incidence of positive test results on preemployment drug screens have dropped over th e last five years from an average of 8.9 percent positive test results to an average of 5.3 percent of positive test results currently. This drop in positive test results is most likel y attributable to one reason, mainly that the companies that adopt and maintain pre-empl oyment drug testing programs are less likely to attract drug users. A drug user looking for employment will naturally avoid construction firms with drug testing program s and will be more inclined to seek employment with those firms that do not have drug free workplace programs. While companies that have implemented using drug-free workplace programs have fewer drug users applying for employment, those compan ies that do not drug test will see more applicants who are substance abusers. Results of analyzing random drug tests al so showed a decline in drug use. For example, respondents reported that an averag e of 5.2 percent of random drug tests taken 63

PAGE 64

from five years ago were positive in comparison with only 2.23 percent positive currently. It is concluded th at a construction firm with a random drug testing program creates a significant deterrent for substance abusers to seek employment with that firm. The longer a company maintains a drug-free workplace program, the more that company establishes itself as an undesirable place of employment for drug users. It is also possible that the knowledge that one mi ght be tested at any time is a significant deterrent to stop most current employees from using drugs. It is also assumed that the longer a company maintains random drug testing the more likely it will be to weed out those employees that are abusing drugs. After analyzing the data, marijuana was shown to be the most frequently abused drug both currently, and five years ago. It is concluded that this is the most frequently used drug in the construction industry according to positive test results. This can also be attributed in part to the increased timeline of detection for the dr ug in standard urine testing. Urinalysis was cited as the most common method of testing by three quarters of the respondents. The presence of THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) being detectable for longer periods of time in thes e urine samples, along with the most common method of testing being urine, creates a larger occu rrence of marijuana being detected in positive drug tests. It is not completely clear how prevalent the use of adulterants is to beat drug tests. It is generally felt that cheating on drug te sts is practiced occasionally. Construction firms are generally sensitive to the possibility of cheating on drug tests and take steps to identify or detect such cheating. It is difficult to assess the actu al extent of this cheating. 64

PAGE 65

The construction industry has been slow to embrace newer alternative methods of drug testing such as hair and saliva analysis. Alternative testing methods have been embraced by few construction companies, primarily due to an ignorance of these alternative drug testing methods, rather than a disdain for these newer technologies. The construction industry may find that there are be nefits to utilizing th ese alternative drug testing methods in certain situations on ce those involved educate themselves about alternative specimens such as hair and saliva. Perhaps the most significant finding of th e study is that increased positive test results are directly correlated to an increase in jobsite accidents. Companies experiencing more than 2% positive test results on both post-accident and random testing showed more than double the OSHA RIR than companies with fewer than 2% positive test results. This information shows that fewer drug users on a jobsite correlate to fewer accidents. 65

PAGE 66

CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS Research Recommendations This research has disclosed a number of practices related to drug testing in the construction industry. In future research, the use of a larger sample size is recommended to create a more thorough and accurate indi cation of the use of drug testing in the construction industry. Analyzing drug testi ng programs in construction companies by size of construction firms might also provide a more accurate portrayal of the types of drug testing programs in different constructi on firms. There may be a marked difference in the use of drug testing programs between di fferent sizes of construction companies and this should be explored. When conducting research, it is recommended that future resear chers utilize the internet as a means of data collection. For example, su rveys could be completed and submitted on-line with full assurance of anony mity for the respondent. This method will help control cost and a larger sample size could be generated. Industry Recommendations The construction industry is adopting dr ug-free-workplace programs more readily than in the past, but there is still work to be done in this area. Those construction firms utilizing drug testing programs are encourag ed to continue their programs and look for ways to improve them. Those construction firms not utilizing drug-free-workplace programs are strongly urged to do so. Drug testing programs have provided many benefits to the construction industry and these benefits s hould be common to the entire construction community. 66

PAGE 67

Construction firms using only minimal te sting programs are encouraged to expand their programs to include all forms of testing previously mentioned, from preemployment testing to post-accident testing. Each method of testing should be adopted to create a comprehensive program which will best serve a construction firm and its employees. It is the employers obligation to provide each employee with a safe place in which to work. Those responsible for de veloping drug testing programs should fully educate themselves to all methods of testing and apply them to their companys program. It is also recommended that those in the construction industry educate themselves as to the alternative te sting methods of drug testing. It is apparent that many within the industry are not aware of, or knowledgeable of these alternative mean s of drug testing. Alternative forms of drug testing may provide some benefits not found in the more common urine testing and may prove beneficial to construction firms looking to improve upon or expand their workplace drug testing pr ograms. Companies are encouraged to be open to the consideration of the use of other tests that have shown to be reliable. All personnel in a construction compa ny should be subjected to drug testing, regardless of position or rank. This crea tes a more equitable drug testing policy and will make drug-free-workplace programs more accepted and easier to institute. The final recommendation is that all construction companies instituting drug testing programs consult the advice of a professiona l. This will limit the possibilities of becoming involved in any legal entanglements and ensure that the most comprehensive drug testing program is developed and implem ented to best serve the company and its employees. 67

PAGE 68

APPENDIX A DRUG TESTING SURVEY QUESTIONAIRRE Drug Testing Survey What is your annual volume?________________ How many field workers are employed by the company? (________ workers) What % of workers take pre-employment screening drug tests? ( _____%) What is the current experience regarding the percentage of the pre-employment screening drug test that are positive? (______% positive) What was the percent of positive results on pre-employment screening tests five years ago? (_______ % positive) Does the company conduct random drug tests? yes no If yes, what is the current percent OF positive results on random drug tests? (______ % positive) What was the approximate % of positive results on random drug tests five years ago? (______ % positive) What percent of the workforce is tested on the random tests? (________ % tested) Are management and office personnel subject to random drug tests as well as field workers? yes no How are the employees selected for the random drug tests? ________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ What type of tests are performed for the random tests? urine saliva hair blood Number of panels in the test: ______ On post-accident drug tests, what percent of these test results were positive? (_______ % positive) Are tests performed immediately after the accident? yes no What is the manner of testing? urine saliva hair blood Number of panels in the test: ______ What percent of the tests are conducted where results ar e available within minutes? (instant, quick or rapid t ype tests)? (_____ %) On positive field tests, are the results veri fied by separate laboratory analysis? yes no Has the company used hair analysis tests for drugs ? yes no What is the company view of th e hair tests for drugs? (please all that apply) we dont know enough about th ese tests to try them we feel that these tests are unreliable these tests are prohibitively expensive we dont use these tests because the re sults do not give the time frame of use these tests seem to be good but we have not tried them these tests are promising and we will try them in the near future we are using these tests and are pleased with the results 68

PAGE 69

other (comment): _____________________________________________ Current Year Five years ago What is the most frequently abused drug according to testing? What is the second most frequently abused drug according to testing? In which states has the company worked where workers compensation benefits are denied to injured workers who test positive for drug use? ________________ __________________ __________________ ________________ __________________ __________________ ________________ __________________ __________________ In which states has the company worked where workers compensation premiums are reduced for companies that implem ent a drug-free workplace program? ________________ __________________ __________________ ________________ __________________ __________________ ________________ __________________ __________________ Has the company used saliva tests for alcohol ? yes no What is the company view of the saliva tests for alcohol? (please all that apply) we dont know enough about th ese tests to try them we feel that these tests are unreliable these tests are prohibitively expensive these tests seem to be good but we have not tried them these tests are promising and we will try them in the near future we are using these tests and are pleased with the results we use breathalyzer tests instead other (comment): _____________________________________________ Has the company used saliva tests for drugs? yes no If yes, how panels are used? ________________ What is the company view of the saliva tests for drugs? (please all that apply) we dont know enough about th ese tests to try them we feel that these tests are unreliable these tests are prohibitively expensive these tests seem to be good but we have not tried them these tests are promising and we will try them in the near future we are using these tests and are pleased with the results other (comment): _____________________________________________ 69

PAGE 70

Has the company used sweat tests for drugs? yes no What is the company view of sweat tests for drugs? (please all that apply) we dont know enough about th ese tests to try them we feel that these tests are unreliable these tests are prohibitively expensive these tests seem to be good but we have not tried them these tests are promising and we will try them in the near future we are using these tests and are pleased with the results In your opinion, how extensive is the pract ice of workers cheating on drug tests? none only occasional fairly common (major concern for us) On what percentage of worker dr ug tests is cheating suspected? ______%. Do the drug tests that the co mpany administers also test for adulterates in the urine samples (or saliva or sweat samples) to identify possible cheating on drug tests? yes no Are the urine tests temperature-checked when the sample is taken? yes no What type of adulterants have been found in drug test samples? ___________________ _______________________________________________________________________ What are the consequences for workers who test positive for drugs on a random test? fired with no chance of being rehired fired but workers are considered for rehiring within ____ days if drug test is passes fired and workers are encouraged to enroll in rehabilitation center Please provide any additional comments abou t the company experiences about drug use and drug testing that was not a ddressed in the above questions. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ What is your companys total OSHA recordable injury rate? ______________ Contact Information: If you would like to receive a copy of a summ ary report of this research, please include your name and address below and a copy will be sent to you. Regardless, your name and that of the company will not be used for any other purpose other than to send the report to you. Thank you for your participation. Name: _____________________________________________ Firm: ______________________________________________ Address: ______________________________________________ City: _______________________ State: _______ Zip: ________ 70

PAGE 71

APPENDIX B DRUG TESTING COVER LETTER Statement to be Read to Participants May 10, 2007 To: Potential Study Participants Subject: Current Drug Testing Practi ces in the Construction Industry We, the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Co nstruction at the University of Florida, are conducting a study in the United States c oncerning the current drug testing practices in the construction industry. The focus of th e study is to examine the past experiences and to understand the practices that are bei ng employed by contractor s to address drug testing in the construction industry. The study will be conducted through a survey in which a variety of questions will be asked about your firms background and your ex perience with drug testing practices on construction projects. There are no risks asso ciated with participating in this study and the survey can be completed in about five minutes. A copy of the results summary will be provided to any interested pa rticipants. Naturally, you are asked to answer only those questions that you feel co mfortable in answering. Your individual responses will be kept strictly confidential to the extent provided by law. Research data will be summarized so that th e identity of individual participants will be concealed. No compensation will be provide d for your participation. You have our sincere thanks for participa ting in this valuable study. Please return completed survey forms to: University of Florida School of Building Construction 304 Rinker Hall PO Box 115703 Gainesville, Fl 32611-5703 Fax: (352) 392-4357 Email: dingobcn@ufl.edu hinze@ufl.edu Sincerely, Chris Arduengo Building Construction Graduate Student Phone: (352) 514-2997 Fax: (352) 392-4537 Email: dingobcn@ufl.edu Dr. Jimmie Hinze Professor, Director of the Center fo r Construction Safety and Loss Control M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction 71

PAGE 72

University of Florida Phone: (352) 273-1167 Fax: (352) 392-4537 Email: hinze@ufl.edu 72

PAGE 73

LIST OF REFERENCES Bush, D. M. (2008). "The U.S. Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs: Current Status and Future Considerations." Forensic Science International 174(2/3), 11-119. Caplan, Y. H. (2001). "Alternative Specimens for Workplace Drug Testing." Journal of Analytical Toxicology 25(5), 396-399. Cholakis, P. (2006). "Why Drugs and Safety Don't Mix." Occupational Health and Safety 75(8), 28-32. Hinze, J. (2006). Construction Safety Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as PrenticeHall, Inc., Gainesville, Fl. Kintz, Paul. (1996). "Drug test ing in Addicts: A Comparis on Between Urine, Sweat and Hair." Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, 18(4), 490-495. Kintz, Pascal, N. S. (2002). "Use of Alternative Specimens: Drugs of Abuse in Saliva and Doping Agents in Hair." Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, 24(2), 239-246. Kintz, Pascal, M. V., Vincent Cirimele. ( 2006). "Hair Analysis for Drug Detection." Therapeutic Drug Monitoring 28(3), 442-446. Minchin Jr, Edward, Kelu Guo, Jennifer Languell. (2006). "Case for Drug Testing of Construction Workers." Journal of Management in Engineering January 2006 22(1), 4350. Rosen, Les (2000-2002). Employ ment Screening Resources. http://esr.metromediadesi gn.com/articles/article18.php "Zero Tolerance Drug Policy." Concrete Construction (1999) 51(November 2006), 22, 24. Department of Health and Human Services S ubstance Abuse and Ment al Health Services Administration. (1996). Drug Use Among US Workers: Prevalence and Trends by Occupation and Industry Categories Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services. U.S. Department of Defense American For ces Press Service News Articles. 2000 DoD Winning 30-Year War Against Drugs In the Ranks http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45495 Department of Health and Human Services S ubstance Abuse and Ment al Health Services Administration. (1997) 73

PAGE 74

U.S. Department of Labor USDOL. 1998a. http://www.dol.gov 1998. CNA Commercial Insurance. 1998. Drug-free workplace: model program for contractors. http://www.cna.com/commercial/ tool box talks/pdf download/Contractor subst.pdf August 15, 2003. Associated General Contractor s AGC. 1998. Preventing substance abuse: How to institute a drug testing program at your construction company. http://www.agc.org/pub lic/ConstructionNews/commar/ page36.html 1998. National Institute for Occupational Sa fety and Health (NIOSH.) (1998.) Job safety and health in Florida. State Profiles. National Council on Compensation Insurance NCCI. 1998. http:// www.nils.com/rupps/4200.htm 1998 Great American Insurance Company. (1998). Drug-free workplace. http://www.gaic.com 1998. Ultimate Detox (2007). Drug Testing Drug Testing Types http://www.ultimatedetox.co.uk/ Pass Your Test (2003). Drug Test Types. http://www.passyourtest.com/ National Institute of Health. 2008. National Institute On Drug Abusehttp://www.nida.nih.gov/ 74

PAGE 75

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Christopher Arduengo was born in Tampa, Florida in 1981. He attended high school at H.B. Plant in Tampa, Florida before being accepted to the University of Florida for the fall semester 1999. Mr. Arduengo gra duated cum laude with a bachelors of science in history in the spring of 2004. Af ter graduating Mr. Arduengo returned to his hometown of Tampa. He taught exceptional education students in 3rd, 4th and 5th grade at J.S. Robinson elementary school in Plant City, Florida. Mr. Arduengo was accepted into the M.E. Rinker School of Building Construction Masters program in the fall of 2006. After gr aduating in 2008, Mr. Arduengo once again returned to his hometown of Tampa to begin a career in the construction industry. 75