IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/conmgt/v29y2011i10p1043-1057.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Drug testing practices in the US construction industry in 2008

Author

Listed:
  • Svetlana Olbina
  • Jimmie Hinze
  • Christopher Arduengo

Abstract

Drug testing is an effective way to improve jobsite safety, productivity and profits. Since drug use impairs the abilities of construction workers, many construction companies have implemented drug testing policies. The research aim was to identify the current drug testing practices of construction contractors. The research objectives were to determine: (1) the extent of the implementation of drug testing; (2) testing practices being used; (3) testing methods being used; (4) the most frequently drugs used; and (5) the use and prevalence of adulterants to cheat on drug tests. In 2008 the data were collected through surveys sent to US construction firms that were randomly selected from the Blue Book of Building and Construction. The results show that drug use continues to be a concern although the extent of drug use has declined in recent years. Most of the firms conduct both pre-employment drug screening and random drug testing. Marijuana and cocaine are the primary drugs used. Urine analysis continues to be the most common drug test used, while other testing methods are being explored with some hesitance. Cheating on drug tests appears to be a major concern. The results show that there is a statistically significant relationship between drug usage and safety performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Svetlana Olbina & Jimmie Hinze & Christopher Arduengo, 2011. "Drug testing practices in the US construction industry in 2008," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(10), pages 1043-1057.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:29:y:2011:i:10:p:1043-1057
    DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2011.631553
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01446193.2011.631553
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01446193.2011.631553?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:29:y:2011:i:10:p:1043-1057. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.