Study: In states where companies don’t test for drugs, jobs are given to white women, not Blacks

2nd June 2014   ·   0 Comments

By Frederick H. Lowe
Contributing Writer

(Special from The NorthStar News & Analysis) – Pre-employment drug tests are fairly common throughout the United States, but in states where companies are not required to drug test potential employees before hiring them, the available jobs go to white women instead Blacks, although more white women than Black women are being imprisoned for drug use.

“I find some evidence that employees substitute white women for Blacks in the absence of drug screening,” Abigail K. Wozniak, associate professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame, wrote in paper titled “Discrimi­nation and The Effects of Drug Testing on Black Employment.” The National Bureau of Economic Research in Cam bridge, Mass., published the paper in May.

“The evidence on employers substituting white women when testing is not available is suggestive,” Wozniak wrote in an email message to The NorthStar News & Analysis. “Unfortunately, I don’t have more details beyond what was in the paper.” White women 20 years old and older have the lowest unemployment rate and Black men 20 years old and older have the highest, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Wozniak does not delve into this issue, but The Sentencing Project released a study that reported that more white women than Black women are being incarcerated in state and federal prisons for property crimes related to illegal and prescription drug use.

“I think your question—do employers know the facts and ignore them without testing or do they really not know—is an intriguing one and deserves more research,” she added.

Wozniak notes that drug testing in the U.S. labor market began in the early 1980s, driven by the fact that workplace accidents in which drugs were alleged to play a role were occurring, the development of accurate and inexpensive screening devices were readily available, rising public anxiety over the prevalence of drugs in society and federal incentives for workplace drug testing.

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan issued an executive order requiring that federal agencies adopt testing to establish “drug-free workplaces.” The 1988 Drug Free Workplace Act went further, requiring federal contractors to adopt comprehensive anti-drug policies.

By the late 1980s, grounds as to which employers could require testing were well-established by the courts, notably with a major U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1989.

Anti-testing states have small Black populations compared to pro-testing states, which have large Black populations. Most of the testing states are in the South and Midwest. And most of the anti-testing states are in the Northeast.

According to the 2006-2007 Guide to State and Federal Drug Testing Laws, 14 states require employers to test job applicants for drugs and seven are anti testing.

More whites use drugs than Blacks but that belief is not shared by employers. Their own racial prejudices coupled with news reports and so-called reality television shows depicting police arresting mostly Blacks for drug-related offenses have led most people to believe that African Americans use drugs more than whites.

The reality is much different from the reel news.

From 1990 to 2006, 13 percent of whites and 12 percent of Blacks reported some drug use in the past month. Less-skilled Blacks and less-skilled whites reported drug use of 19 percent, the report said.

Police, however, have developed a set of perceptions in which they disproportionately target Blacks, which has become part of the mindset of small business owners and corporate America.

“In a survey of hiring managers, there is a belief that Blacks are more likely to fail a drug test and they cite evidence that even Black youth overestimate their down drug use relative to whites. They also cite a 1989 survey in which 95 percent of [hiring survey] respondents described the typical drug user as Black,” the report stated.

This article originally published in the June 2, 2014 print edition of The Louisiana Weekly newspaper.