Dr. Lu Yuan, CSP 985-549-2189 Lu.Yuan@selu.edu Construction Substance-Abuse Programs & Safety Incentives OSHE 382, Spring 2016 Dr. Lu Yuan, CSP 985-549-2189 Lu.Yuan@selu.edu

History of Drug-Testing Programs 1914, Ford Motor Company profit-sharing plan 1960s, collective bargaining agreements 1980s, laboratory test 1986, Executive Order 12564 – Drug-Free Federal Workplace 1988, Drug-Free Workplace Act 1991, Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act

History of Drug-Testing Programs Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Division of Workplace Programs http://www.samhsa.gov/ Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Working Partners Program (discontinued)

Drug Testing is a Controversial Issue Those against: Measure use of illegal drugs rather than performance impairment Dissolution times are different Reliability of the drug-testing procedures Increased legal liability

Drug Testing is a Controversial Issue Those in favor: Drug testing reduces the number and severity of accidents, workers’ compensation claims, injury rates, and EMRs. It also improves custom relations. A causal relationship between drug use and accident occurrence is warranted.

Components of Drug-Testing Programs Types: Pre-hire testing Post-hire testing Procedures based on federal requirements: Laboratory test Cut-off levels for report Use of medical review officers Safeguards to ensure consistent treatment of samples

Drug-Testing in Construction In 1983, less than 1% of employees were subject to drug testing. Today, approximately 49% of full-time workers between the ages of 18 and 49 are subject to some type of workplace drug testing (SAMHSA 1999). This growth is particularly evident in the construction industry. It was estimated that in 1997, 14.1% of full-time construction workers between the ages of 18 and 49 were current illicit drug users and that 12.4% engaged in heavy alcohol use. This percentage is nearly double the national average for all industries, 7.7 and 7.6%, respectively (SAMHSA 1999). Gerber, J.K. and Yacoubian Jr., G.S. (2001) Evaluation of drug testing in the workplace: Study of the construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 127:6, 438-444.

Gerber and Yacoubian Jr.’s Study Data for the study was collected through a survey which was sent to a randomly selected national sample of officials at construction companies. The data examined included injury incident rates and workers’ compensation experience-rating modification factors compiled over a five-year period and supplied by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI).

Gerber and Yacoubian Jr.’s Study The study shows that the implementation of a drug-free workplace program directly influences a reduction in Injury incident rates, Workers’ compensation experience-rating modification factors, and Workers’ compensation premiums.

Other Findings of Gerber and Yacoubian Jr.’s Study Reasons for implementing drug-testing programs include: To promote the safety of their workers and those who use their products and services. Drug testing contributes positively to a company’s image. Drug testing is an effective deterrent in preventing drug abuse.

Other Findings of Gerber and Yacoubian Jr.’s Study Important barriers to implementing drug-testing programs include: A concern for increased legal liability Testing could be too costly. State laws prohibiting or restricting an employers’ right to drug test significantly hinder the implementation of programs.

Summary: Drug-Testing All drug testing must be conducted as part of a comprehensive drug-prevention program aimed at preventing and managing substance abuse in the workplace. (Gerber and Yacoubian Jr., 2001) What Do You Think?

Incentive Definition: A benefit that is offered as a result of an accomplishment or an exhibited behavior Monetary: Increased salary, bonus, and asset, etc. Non-monetary: Prestige, fame, and importance, etc.

Performance Objective Definition: An established goal which, when met, provides some value to the person or entity offering the benefit and also, possibly, to the person receiving the benefit. While the behavior is not the central focus of the incentive, it is the desired outcome.

Safety Incentive Program Roles: Raise awareness of safety issues Improve proactive behaviors Create a long-lasting, safe working culture Eliminate or Reduce negative behaviors

Safety Incentives in Construction Three types: Outcome based: To meet a specified outcome or level of performance Behavior based: To exhibit certain behaviors Activity based: To participate in sanctioned activities that relate to safety

Outcome-Based Safety Incentive Also called injury/illness-based incentive Relatively easy to implement and therefore common among construction companies Some concerns: Consistent with the duration over which the performance is measured Not having injuries does not necessarily mean safe work behavior

Behavior-Based Safety Incentive Comparatively difficult to measure and monitor because: Employee behavior is complex and difficult to gauge. And, Employee behavior changes constantly in reaction to external factors such as new facilities, new equipment, and new workgroups.

Behavior-Based Safety Incentive It is assumed that safe behavior will lead to improved safety performance in terms of reduced injuries. The award is given in consideration of the behavior’s potential impact on safety performance.

Activity-Based Safety Incentive Example activities include: Safety toolbox meetings Safety training classes Safety and health conferences Generally easier to implement than behavior-based incentive. It is assumed that there is a relationship between participation in certain activities and improved safety performance.

Types of Incentive Rewards Gifts Safety bucks Recognition plaque Distinguished Award Etc.

Concerns about Safety Incentive Whether safety incentive changes workers’ behavior consistently The value of incentive: Make sure it is appropriate for the effort required to receive it Injury underreporting Expected behavior vs. extraordinary behavior: “Above and beyond”

Impact of Construction Safety Incentives Previous research studies (Hinze, 2002; Goodrum and Gangwar, 2004) found that incentives are effective in improving many of the safety performance metrics used in construction. However, Differences exist within the industry regarding perceptions of their effectiveness (Goodrum and Gangwar, 2004). Hinze, J. (2002) Safety incentives: do they reduce injuries? Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction. 7:2, 81–84. Goodrum, P.M. and Gangwar, M. (2004) Safety incentives: A study of their effectiveness in construction. Professional Safety. July, 24-34.

Summary: Safety Incentive Safety incentive should be part of an overall comprehensive SH&E program that not only involves workplace training but also engineers safety into the construction process. (Goodrum and Gangwar, 2004) What Do You Think?