Legal Regulation Impacting Human Resources : Drug-Free Workplace Act - Research Paper Example

? Legal Regulation Impacting Human Resources Paper: Drug-Free Workplace Act Legal Regulation Impacting Human Resources Paper: Drug-Free Workplace Act A drug-free workplace is defined by a working environment that is free from the hazards posed to productivity, safety and health by the use of drugs and controlled substances by employees. Alcohol has been identified as the most commonly abused drug in the workplace. Use, or abuse, of drugs in the workplace entails the consumption, sell and distribution of the drugs within work premises (Webb, Shakeshaft & Havard, 2009). It is, however, significant to note that the consumption does not necessarily have to take place on the premises for job production to be affected negatively. Use of drugs by any level of employees during their own time has been known to cause absenteeism that works against the initiatives of the Drug-Free Workplace Act. Enacted in 1988, the law was intended to eventually curb the losses incurred by businesses in billions of dollars as a result of annual drops in productivity, with half of the cases related to illnesses and the other half to premature death. This paper will describe and discuss the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 and the history of the law including issues that led to its passage. It will then discuss the impact of the law on health organizations. Description of the Act The provisions of the Act are applicable to organizations that receive annual federal contracts that have a minimum value of $100,000. As a US federal legislation, the main objective of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 is to minimize the use of drugs by employees in organizations and by individuals that have contracts and grants with the federal government. A fundamental requirement of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 is for all federal grantees and some federal contractors to show that they will meet the prerequisite mandate to receive a grant or contract from Federal agencies. As a prequalifying condition, this means that they must be able to provide workplaces that are drug-free as per the guidelines prescribed by the Act in Section 706(2) (Bennett & Lehman, 2003). All covered grantees and contractors need to maintain a continuous drug-free environment but, however, depending on whether they are an organization or individual, the applicable specific components required to qualify differ. Potential employees must consent to the policy after reading and understanding it as a precondition of employment. Employers are obliged to publish and distribute to all covered employees a policy statement that informs them of the illegality of possessing, dispensing, distributing or manufacturing of controlled substances in the premises of the covered workplace (Webb, Shakeshaft & Havard, 2009). It should also be clear that such a policy is also applicable to any organization-sponsored projects that take place away from the registered premises. Through the publication, the employees must also be made aware of the legally prescribed actions against violators of the policy. The employer is also required to establish programs for employees that raise awareness of the drug-free maintenance policy; drug-related risks at the workplace; specific penalties relating to different aspects of violations; and available employee assistance initiatives, rehabilitation and drug counseling. All employees must be duly notified of their covered status by reason of being federal employees either by grant or contract. They must, therefore, adhere to policy statement’s terms and, within five days, notify the employer if they are convicted of criminal workplace drug violations. Under the Act, it is also an employer’s obligation to notify a granting or contracting agency in the event that a covered employee gets a conviction of violating the workplace drug policy within 10 days of receipt of the notice. Further, the employer may impose penalties on convicted employees or suggest adequate participation in rehabilitation or assistance programs. Such penalties are meted at the employer’s discretion and may simply be disciplinary action or warning after appropriate case-specific evaluations. Finally, employers are required to commit to good faith efforts that will keep on maintaining drug-free workplaces by implementing all the provisions of the Act. History of the Act and Issues that led to is Passage A drug-free workplace emerged as a concept in 1914 that led to the initiative of sobriety programs by the Ford Motor Company in its facilities in the same year. It was later signed as an Executive Order by President Reagan, banning the use of drugs by employees of the federal government whether on duty or off duty. In 1986, it came to the realization of the government that the use of drugs was becoming a widespread issue that negatively and seriously affected the productivity of the workforce, causing losses worth billions of dollars. The losses represented the single, largest contributor to the toll placed on society by excessive alcohol consumption. In view of this, the federal government took the initiative to move towards being a drug-free workplace as an employer, which led to the Executive Order being passed into the Drug-Free Workplace Act in 1988 by Congress. By requiring the employer to provide policy guidelines and employees to abide by them, the Act presents the responsibility of tackling the problem as the imperative for both employers and employees. Drug abusers were found to be the greatest-liability employees and it was observed among them that there was rampant absenteeism or lateness, more frequent involvement in workplace accidents, frequent change of jobs and the possibility of filing workers’ compensation claims. The extent of issues caused by workplace drug abuse is also seen in the way in which it affects even non-abusers. For instance, studies have shown that having drug-abusers as co-workers is detrimental to the morale and output of those who do not use drugs (Kuoppala, Lamminpaa & Husman, 2008). Drug-abusers are prone to injure others in accidents at the workplace other than themselves, with industries having safety-sensitive operations, such as healthcare, construction and transport, being the most affected. Although safety at the workplace, personnel wellbeing and organizational productivity are the most emphasized justifications behind the Act, several others also called for the need of enforcing it. Because most drug and alcohol abusers were found to be employed, the workplace provided a cost-effectively unique setting to implement and enforce strategies in public health that address such problems. Issues such as workplace cultures informed choice of the workplace as a target for the Act. Reporting to work while intoxicated and illicit use of drugs or dangerous drinking were more in some industries than others. This called for the implementing an Act that would cover all industries with employers required to come up with work specific policies (Kuoppala, Lamminpaa & Husman, 2008). Previously, some industries largely condoned the abuse and misbehavior, which was potentially perilous on two different platforms. First, the performance of the indulging employees dragged the entire organization back while secondly, work stress borne by the overworked non-abusive coworkers compounded the problem. Consequently, the workplace became more hazardous, characterized by poor industrial and colleague to colleague relations, irregular shift hours, serious accidents, lack of job satisfaction and psychological and physical distress. Impact of the Drug-Free Workplace Act on Health Organizations To analyze the impact of the Act on healthcare organizations, it is imperative to view such organizations as ones charged with the responsibility of taking care of health and ultimately life. When the flow of information, processes, cooperation and feedback is hindered by gaps created by impaired team players, it could mean the difference between life and death. The working environment of a healthcare organization is a perfect example of organizations in which the advancement of operations towards a solution is based on a cyclic and time-conscious chain of feedback between different departments. A delayed report from one department, say, the laboratory, will put on hold the progress of all other departments depending on the results to save a life. This puts the staff of a healthcare organization among the worst that can be hit by a breakdown in protocol, which could easily lead to rising stress levels. As other studies have shown, stressed employees may in some circumstances tend to indulge more in their abuse of substances (Doumas & Hannah, 2008). After drugs and alcohol were established to be the highest causes of such unfavorable circumstances in the workplace, health organizations only stand to be impacted positively by the Act. By virtue of most of them being large institutions, health organizations are among the biggest beneficiaries of the Act. During the implementation stages, a study showed that individuals who could not abide by the Act sought employment in smaller firms that did not enforce it (Bush & Autry, 2002). It is worth noting that due to their nature of work, an error arising from the acts or omissions of an impaired health worker can be devastating to a health institution, not only the affected patient and family members. Therefore, all efforts should be towards impacting the overall delivery of healthcare to patients positively while protecting the staff of the organization. The scope of duties among the professionals in a healthcare organization range from physicians to nurses, machine operators, pharmacists, caterers and waiting staff, all with the common objective of reinstating and maintaining health, not only for patients but themselves too. None of them is of less significance than the other to warrant reporting to work in an impaired state. The Act has served to recognize, assess and control the abuse of substances in healthcare organizations as workplaces that must demand zero-tolerance of abuse. This has reduced occupational hazards among the staff and equally significantly, the risks to which patients are exposed, especially in situations where the employees are too many to be known personally and monitored by the human resources department (Doumas & Hannah, 2008). Having the Act embedded in the workplace culture of healthcare organizations is also advantageous because the occupations of a majority of the staff are labor-intensive and the supervisory staff may not readily notice apparent signs of dependence. However, with employees obliged by policies to notify the management of such traits, there is a higher likelihood of exposing several cases. Further, employees are more likely to confide in colleagues in seeking help out of dependency problems rather than supervisory staff. This is made possible by initiatives such as employee assistance programs which include competitions, seminars or classes where information is offered on the risks and hazards of abusing substances. Customized employee assistance programs for healthcare organizations that recognize and intervene in drug and alcohol problems may be availed through the management or labor unions. For example, when nurses are motivated by cooperative colleagues who are always alert and duly completing their assignments in designated shifts, the risk of burnout is cut down by up to 50 percent. The significance of this cannot be understated, since burnout among nurses has been known to be a dangerously contagious phenomenon that can paralyze an entire department. The underperformance of a single nurse due to substance abuse will have a ripple effect not only on fellow nurses but all affiliated departments. On the other hand, the benefits of a functional nursing department spread throughout the healthcare fraternity as is manifested by patients receiving satisfactory care. The organization benefits from savings on costs that would have been incurred in litigations instituted against them, penalties charged and rehabilitation costs. Machine operators are a critical component of the procedures through which physicians, nurses, pharmacists or management input data to be processed and avail useful information. Although machine errors cannot be completely absolved from inaccuracies in processing information, human error has been reported to result in more drastic outcomes. Among the core causes of human errors in machine operations in past years has been established to be alcohol consumption (Bennett & Lehman, 2003). With a drug-free workplace policy in place, all machine operators are screened for abuse and if found in violation stopped from operating any equipment. Since the purpose of screening does not end at preventing them from operating equipment, further action and help follow as a necessity to impact long term beneficial effects. In this way, the healthcare organization benefits from continuous accurate information processed by its staff from which they can design and tailor the most appropriate remedial for patients (Bush & Autry, 2002). Therefore, the Act has effectively, even though not in a foolproof manner as desired, produced a more sober working environment in healthcare organizations. Significant reductions in errors have been reported and higher levels of motivation among healthcare providers, but more still needs to be done. For example, emphasis should be put on counseling and assistance programs, not only penalties that are sometimes as severe as job termination. References Bennett, J., & Lehman, W. (2003). Preventing workplace substance abuse: Beyond drug testing to wellness. Washington: American Psychological Association. Bush, D., & Autry, J. (2002). Substance abuse in the workplace: Epidemiology, effects, and industry. Occupational Medicine, 17(2), 13-25. Doumas, D., & Hannah, E. (2008). Preventing high-risk drinking in youth in the workplace: A web-based normative feedback program. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 34(3), 263-271. Kuoppala, J., Lamminpaa, A. & Husman, P. (2008). Work health promotion, job well-being, and sickness absences—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 50(11), 1216-1227. Webb, G., Shakeshaft, A., & Havard, A. (2009). A systematic review of workplace interventions for alcohol-related problems. Addiction, 104(3), 365-377. Read More