Drug and alcohol testing is not always seen as entirely cost-effective. However, it is quite financially efficient. Logically speaking, employees under the influence of illicit substances have consistently lower levels of productivity. Even small areas of low productivity can significantly affect an entire organization. When one part of the business is sluggish, it slows down the remaining departments. In addition to this, better pre-employment strategies, such as drug screening, was found to save a test organization up to $162 per applicant hired among a test group of 2533 applicants, in a study by Zwerling, Ryan and Orav.
In another research project, the total annual loss of productivity due to drug and alcohol abuse was estimated at $100 billion. The research states that two factors have been the leading cause for using urinalysis for drug testing: the growing demand for drug testing in the workforce, and technical developments in drug testing methods, which allow for easier, more widespread and more cost effective testing. At this point, reliable, low-cost testing equipment is necessary and would prevent individual organizations from losing money on their testing programs, rather than increasing income because of them.
Employees under the influence have consistently low levels of job retention. The organization must foot the bill for high employee turnover. Not only does low job retention affect the organization as a whole, but it affects coworkers who retain steady, reliable, trustworthy employment. In a study conducted by David Parish, it was determined that a minimum of 10% higher rate of employee turnover occurred in drug-positive workers than in their negatively-tested counterparts, and that drug-positive office staff were significantly more likely to be fired or to leave without notice than the managerial staff. Organizations are less likely to be able to retain high quality workers when pre-employment testing is not maintained, and office staff is more likely to have a high employee turnover rate than staff in a more professional or managerial capacity, although management also tested positive. This was to a lesser degree, but the difference in drug-positive testing between upper and lower management was not considered due to less usage, but to the lower echelon staff receiving more frequent evaluations from which they could be fired.
At CMM Technology, we offer steady, consistent alcohol and drug testing equipment and training, at an affordable and easily serviceable price. Our services will reduce the stress environment in your business, as well as remain cost-effective.
For expert assistance on a quality workplace drug and alcohol testing solution, contact our team of industry professionals today on (+618) 9204 2500.
1. “JAMA — Abstract: Costs and Benefits of Preemployment Drug Screening, January 1, 1992, Zwerling et al. 267 (1): 91.” JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, a weekly peer-reviewed medical journal published by AMA. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2010. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/267/1/91.
2. “NCJRS Abstract – National Criminal Justice Reference Service.” National Criminal Justice Reference Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2010. http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=132364.
3. Parish, David C.. “Relation of the Pre-employment Drug Testing Result To Employment Status: A One-year Follow-up.” SpringerLink.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. www.springerlink.com/content/b442n8x8373164w6/fulltext.pdf.