>>> Part 10 of 19...
24-hour shifts in the middle of a long shift, but decided it would be
too much of a burden.
 
These remarks raise questions about the adequacy and advisability of 
the other organization's random fitness-for-duty testing system. Here, 
not every employee is tested every day. Instead, because employees, who 
are contracted out to other businesses , work at many different
locations, "roving" supervisors, armed with laptop computers, are sent
to about 10 to 15 sites on a given day.
 
These sites are chosen at random; thus, some employees could be tested 
several times per week, and others, only once every several weeks. It
has been asserted that "a random testing protocol for fitness-for-duty 
analysis may hinder the overall objective of conducting fitness-for-duty
analysis" (Transportation Research Associates, Inc., 1994, p. 86). 
Likewise, a representative of the test manufacturer told me that he does
not endorse this random testing. First, although all employees there are
"eligible" every day for testing, any of those not randomly selected on
a given day may, of course, go to work in an impaired state. Second,
some of those who are selected for testing take the test after their
shift has already begun. Third, if a long period passes between an
employee's consecutive random tests, lack of practice at the test will
affect the employee's ability to meet his or her baseline and thus
complicate interpretation of test results. 
 
All organizations in the sample test job applicants for drug use and 
test employees for cause. One also conducts post-accident testing, and 
two organizations are also required to conduct random drug testing for 
their employees in transportation-relate d jobs.
 
Nonetheless, at three organizations, representatives told me they 
perceived behavior-based testing as more effective than drug testing 
because of the former's ability to detect impaired behavior every day 
before it can cause harm. (One of these representatives commented, 
further, that drug testing did not make sense in light of research 
findings that most on-the-job accidents result from stress and fatigue 
rather than from drug use.) They also perceived fitness-for-duty testing
as less intrusive than drug testing.
 
Reasons for implementing fitness-for-duty testing. At one 
organization, fitness-for-duty testing was implemented in hopes of 
reducing the high rate of accidents and workers' compensation claims. In
contrast, another organization, with a low accident record, testing was
adopted pro-actively to ensure continuing workplace safety. At a third
organization, whose representative asserted, "There's no room for error
in our industry," fitness-for-duty testing was initially implemented as
a pro-active measure for one group of employees, and was later expanded
to other groups after a customer rejected a flawed product. At a fourth
organization, fitness-for-duty testing was initiated to appeal to
customers and was seen as a way to gain a competitive edge. The other
two organizations wanted to enhance safety, and viewed behavior-based
testing as less intrusive than drug testing.
 
Impact of fitness-for-duty testing.
 
Although fitness-for-duty testing is conducted to ensure safety, its 
impact is generally not monitored systematically. Instead, respondents 
pointed to anecdotal evidence that fitness-for-duty testing is working. 
 
Only one of the six respondents gave me any "hard" data about the 
effect of his organization's fitness-for-duty testing program. He
pointed to steadily decreasing insurance premiums, workers' compensation
claims, and minor accidents, all of which he at tributes to increased
alertness resulting from fitness-for-duty testing. When I pointed out
that his company has had urine drug testing for most of the time that
fitness-for-duty testing has been in place, he claimed confidently that
the latter was the true boon to safety and productivity. When asked how
he knew, however, he replied only with, "You can just tell."
 
Most of the other respondents pointed to anecdotal evidence that 
fitness-for-duty testing is working. As one commented, "Our best
feedback comes from employees." Employees who are less sharp than usual,
yet not impaired enough to fail their test, have told her that because
they are focused on safety now, they take pains to concentrate at work.
A second explained that the test "gets their attention, gets people to
refrain from risky behavior the night before" that could make them show
up tired for work. A third also alluded to the deterrent quality of
fitness-for-duty testing, going so far as to say that "It seems as if
people have changed their lifestyles because of the test." He and
another respondent indicated that because employees are entitled 
to a maximum number of unexcused absences, they cannot afford to fail
the test repeatedly and will therefore come to work ready to perform.
This other respondent also told me that the fitness-for-duty test had
saved an employee's life at her organization. (After failing the test,
the employee was discovered to have kidney failure.)
 
At the remaining organization in the sample, not even anecdotal signs 
of the impact of fitness-for-duty testing are collected: "Just keeping 
track of who passes or fails each day is enough to do," the manager 
expressed in an exasperated tone. Testing policies. Some organizations 
have very specific and precise policies; others use more flexible 
case-by-case approaches to decide what to do when employees fail to meet
their baseline. The latter grant greater discretion to supervisors, to
the extent that an employee's actual test result becomes less important
for determining how it is interpreted.
 >>> Continued to next message...
___
 X Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 X
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------