Most Small Businesses don’t drug test

Running a business is difficult, whether your business is large or small. Having trustworthy and drug free employees should not be a worry for business owners, but unfortunately this is not the case. Most large companies have a drug test policy with 80% of Fortune 500 companies drug testing their employees. This fact can deter drug users from applying with those companies. The alternative to applying to big companies for fear of drug testing, is applying to small businesses.

Everyone knows that smaller companies are not as likely to drug test as larger companies are, so it usually is the answer for an avid user who is looking for employment, but cannot run the risk of being tested. Small businesses usually choose not to drug test their employees because it is too expensive or difficult, which is far from the truth.

Small businesses are at a huge disadvantage by not drug testing. For fear of expenses and difficulty coming with the testing, they do not have drug testing programs in place, but they are the target employer for a substance abuser. Having an employee that is an illicit drug user can not only have a negative effect on you, but your business as well. The amount of time invested in training a new employee is a major cost to a business and you don’t want to find out months later that your new employee has a drug problem.

If smaller businesses take the time to implement drug testing policy, they can ensure a safer and more productive work environment. Taking precautionary measures to secure your business and its workforce are crucial steps to ensure honesty and productivity from your workers, and it does not have to come at a great expense.

Having a drug testing policy is like using a dummy security camera to prevent theft in that it might just prevent drug users from applying to your company. Even adding a line to your job ads that says “must pass a drug test prior to hiring” can help you eliminate some potential applicants that know they cannot pass a drug test or posting a sign in the lobby or area that people apply for jobs that states that “This is Drug Free Workplace” or “We Conduct Drug Testing”.

Workplace and employee safety are huge issues that must be considered by any business owner. However, these concerns do not mean that they require large sums of money to produce the wanted results. Implementing drug testing is an inexpensive and effective way to give you peace of mind when it comes to your business.  If you want to learn more about starting a drug free workplace at your small business visit the SBA Drug Free Workplace for more resources and links.

5 comments

  1. Interesting article! Great read!

  2. Well written post. Pre screening Drug testing is now very important part for every type of Industry. And it is available with good technology options, professional support networks and onsite drug testing. So thanks for sharing.

  3. admin says:

    We agree, there are many options available for small businesses to choose the best drug testing option for them.

  4. Rachael Bish says:

    Being smaller companies doesn’t necessarily mean there would be less chances of conducting drug tests based on budgets or staff numbers. Any responsible business owner should strive to maintain a drug free environment where productivity is not affected and the overall safety of the workplace holds no risk of being compromised by possible users of legal or illegal substances. Regardless if the business is considered large or small, there is possibility of undisclosed use of drugs and the dangers these effects may have on employees. This does not mean that small businesses would be less likely to conduct tests as it would ultimately reflect on the different types of careers. This could depend on the safety of the job and what problems could arise from possible use of drugs rather than the amount of people in an organisation.

    As an example, a large accounting firm with 200 employees should have the budget to conduct yearly drug tests ensuring the safety and productivity of employees. Although the outcomes can’t predicted, a user that has manipulated the system in a way not to be detected by scheduled testing could be causing damage to productivity by showing up to work exhausted from lack of sleep. If this same theory was applied to a private school bus driver who takes less than 30 children to school every day, the business would be significantly smaller but that doesn’t mean the negative impact would have a smaller affect also. To be the user in this situation would mean putting children in danger when the physical and mental ability of a person is compromised. This goes to say there would be a higher demand of workplace drug testing in this particular business due to the higher safety risk of the occupation. Taking into consideration the different aspects of the company the clerk who answers the phones for instance, is not as likely to be subject to testing based on the job description and outnumbering of drivers. In this example, looking at the effects of moderate use of cocaine, includes delusions such as “increased confidence and feeling of invincibility” (Cocaine Facts, Effects of Cocaine, 2011), these becoming highly dangerous for a typical day of a bus driver as the slightest feeling of invincibility could cause one to overlook general traffic situations like turning into traffic at an intersection. Use of this drug would not necessarily be as dangerous for an accountant with a high workload in an office environment. Carrying out the process of scheduled testing could end up costly but the benefits would weigh out the risk of not testing and preventing an accident happening in the first place. Thus leading to investigation carried out by the school board and parents, which could ultimately result in being more extravagant than conducting the initial test to detect a drug user. However “it does not come down to how regularly someone uses an intoxicating substance; it is how a person’s use affects their work or others in the workplace” (Open Polytechnic, 2009, M2, p.7). In saying that I do not believe someone should be scrutinized for use in the past, this could have happened outside work hours or in a previous job as we have no way of determining exactly when usage occurred.

    If smaller companies went ahead and implemented drug testing this should bring honestly and productivity to the business. As an employer, you would be obligated to consider the safety of your staff in a way that may hinder the right to privacy; however you would need to acknowledge these rights between employee and employer. Surely this path would lead to the overriding of privacy for the sake of safety and the productivity of the business? Conflicting with their rights is the contract in which someone would sign prior to being employed stating the level of work required by an employee as a fair objective. If this is not met, and evidence suggests the use of a drug diminishing their production, it is in the interest of an employer to seek reason behind the loss. When there is sufficient information supplied against an offending staff member this would be the justification for carrying out a test, in the first instance, employers may choose other methods such as a dexterity test to gain a better idea of one’s situation and how this may affect productivity. For a watch repairer, this may be an alternative used to better evaluate one’s capability and give an employer a greater understanding rather than going straight to drug testing if this is the reason for not using more expensive testing methods. Some of the reasons may be that there is proof of drug abuse, there is a prominent risk of harm to themselves or other employees and it is affecting capability of work tasks. Finally, “using this means to obtain the information, it must be relevant to the job in order for the testing not to violate privacy” (Drug testing in employment, 2001, p.284) also, there should be no other method available to gather this information. These means would aide a small business in monitoring productivity levels.

    For example, someone working in an office would not necessarily be tested for steroids. It is more likely an athlete would be tested for this as it is relevant to their occupation. Therefor any staff members employed in a small business should be made fully aware of drug testing based on the safety risks of their jobs or as a general practice in the organisation. When consented, employers would have the right to test employees with sufficient grounds for doing so and the main basis for this would be the maintaining of business productivity and safety towards oneself and other members. To be fair to everyone, guidelines would need to be set in respect to the frequency of testing to ensure everyone was treated equally, unless there are obvious reasons to test an individual based on facts or sufficient evidence.

  5. scott says:

    Drug testing is a billion dollar industry, but it’s all one big joke, just like this article is.
    I smoked pot for years, stopped for a month to get a job, and then went right back to smoking. Had I been a cocaine, opiate, or prescription pill user, I could of refrained for only about 3 days. Now some companies do hair testing. Ok, I can apply in three months then.
    Pre-employment drug testing is ineffective, and only prevents marijuana users from applying. There are no real facts that support non-drug users as being more productive either.

    If you are a business owner, have a suspicion based drug testing policy.
    It is the most cost effective and reliable way to keep drugs out of the workplace. Remember, you’re not the police, you’re just an employer. What people do outside of the workplace is law enforcement’s problem.