Cornell Study Construction companies find benefits in testing for drugs
From large international corporations to small local
contractors, construction companies that drug test
appear to be successfully reducing workplace injuries,
according to a new Cornell University study. "While drug
testing is controversial, this study provides useful data
on a readily-measurable outcome," says the study’s
author, Jonathan Gerber, a student at Cornell
University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations
who conducted the study as part of an independent
research project. Professor Robert Smith served as the
advisor of this study.
In the last 15 years, drug testing in the workplace has
gone from ground zero to widespread universal employer
acceptance. In 1983, less than one percent of employees
were subject to drug testing. Today, approximately 49
percent of full-time workers are subject to some form of
workplace drug testing, according to the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Administration.
This growth is particularly evident within the construction
industry. High rates of drug and alcohol abuse in the
construction industry, coupled with the high-risk,
safety-sensitive nature of the industry’s jobs have prompted
many companies to implement a variety of drug prevention
strategies — particularly when the safety of workers and the
public hang in the balance.
The study, titled "An Evaluation of Drug Testing in the
Workplace: A Study of the Construction Industry," was
undertaken to test the effectiveness of workplace drug-testing
programs in establishing safer workplaces by examining
company injury incident rates and workers’ compensation
experience-rating modification factors over a period of
five years. The results reported are based on scientific
analysis of data collected from 71 companies by a voluntary
survey faxed to a randomly selected national sample of four
hundred five (405) construction companies in December 1999.
Additional data was provided by the National Council on
Compensation Insurance (NCCI).
|
Among the study’s findings:
|
 | The average company that drug tests in the study sample experienced a 51 percent reduction in its injury rate within two years of implementing a drug-testing program from a rate of 8.92 incidents per 200,000 work-hours to 4.36 incidents. The difference was proven statistically significant when compared to the 14 percent decline in the average construction firm during the same time period. |
| As a result of fewer job site accidents and injuries, the average company that drug tests in the study sample experienced an 11.41 percent reduction in its workers’ compensation experience-rating modification factor. Firms that did not drug test experienced no decline. This means that companies that drug test can save substantially on their workers’ compensation premiums. |
| Drug testing is most effective in reducing workers’ compensation experience-rating modification factors in the first three years immediately following the implementation of a program. |
| The number one reason why employers in the construction industry drug test their employees and job applicants is to promote the safety of their workers and those who use their products and services. In addition, company officials believe that drug testing contributes positively to a company’s image and is an effective deterrent in preventing drug abuse. |
| The number one reason why some employers in the construction industry do NOT drug test their employees and job applicants is a concern for increased legal liability.
|
The study also revealed that larger construction companies are significantly more likely to
test workers for drugs and alcohol. In addition, state laws prohibiting or restricting and
employers’ right to drug test significantly hinder the implementation of programs.
Further information on the study click here.
Cornell Website - Click Here
 top
| 
