Drug Testing: An Overview
LAWS & LEGISLATION
PRESIDENT BUSH’S antidrug campaign and a number of recent transportation accidents have raised a familar question: Should employees entrusted with the safety of the public be tested for drug use?
This is a question frequently asked in regard to those in the fire service. Firefighters are often required to drive a 30,000-pound fire apparatus or provide medical assistance at a moment’s notice. They must be physically and mentally prepared to do so.
Few fire departments have drug testing programs in place, although many are considering them. Before implementing a drug testing program, a department must consider a number of factors, among which are the type of drug testing program, legal implications, testing methods, and possible effects on firefighters’ morale.
Private industry is already jumping on the drug testing bandwagon. According to Ronald J. Peterson in the October 1987 issue of Personnel, as a result of increased accidents and pressure the number of Fortune 500 companies testing their employees has risen 37 percent in the past three years. The fact that drug users have three times as many accidents as nonusers and are absent from work 2 ½ times as often has also prompted industry to take action. However, the legal considerations of a testing program are not the same for the private sector as they are for the public sector.
SELECTING A TESTING PROGRAM
Before implementing a drug testing program, first you must decide what you want to accomplish. Are you trying to discourage all drug use by employees? Do you only plan to test new hires? Or will you only test an employee after a serious accident if you suspect that the employee may have been on drugs?
There are three types of drug testing programs: cause-based testing, fitnessfor-duty testing, and random drug testing. Each program has its advantages and disadvantages, and these must be taken into consideration before selecting a program.
Cause-based testing is used when there is a reasonable suspicion/probable cause that the employee is using drugs.
These suspicions can stem from a vehicle accident to unusual on-duty behavior such as
- a change in the quality or quantity of work,
- an unusually large number of judgment errors,
- failure to adhere to department policy,
- a large number of unexplained absences, or
- obvious physical impediments such as slurred speech that have no medical explanation.
For this type of program to be effective and hold up to scrutiny, the company officer, battalion chief, or whoever w’ill determine the need for testing must be trained in the signs of drug and alcohol abuse. It is also a good idea to have the suspected employee observed by a doctor or other trained person before any testing is done.
Fitness-for-duty testing is done to ensure that an employee is capable of performing the job at hand. This type of testing is often administered to new employees or to current employees who are being considered for promotion. Some departments also use this method for positions such as paramedics, who are exposed to numerous drugs, or arson investigators, who may carry firearms.
The most controversial method of drug testing is random testing. This method involves testing all employees, but at random. You can randomly test by employee number, station, or other factor depending on the number of employees you want to test at one time. By keeping the employees off guard— they do not know when they will take the test—the hope is that they will refrain from using drugs.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
To date, the few testing programs that have not resulted in lawsuits are those that test new applicants exclusively. No testing programs that involve testing existing employees without due cause have gone unchallenged.
The legality of drug testing is a gray area. One of the major legal issues yet to be resolved is the right to privacy. Many consider the testing of body fluids an invasion of privacy. In nearly every court case cited, the individual’s rights were upheld. The courts stated that the individual’s right to privacy far outweighed the need for any drug test. Blood and urine samples were permitted in only a few cases involving public employees.
Many assume that drug testing in the public sector is a given. This certainly is not the case. A number of unions have successfully challenged drug testing programs. In nearly all cases it was found that an employee cannot be tested solely because he is employed by a public agency. The courts have detailed a few instances in which public safety (primarily police and fire) employees can be tested when the good of the public is involved. Regardless, you should seek legal counsel before implementing a testing program.
TEST METHODS AND RELIABILITY
Fire departments have a number of drug tests from which to choose. Tests range from urinalysis to radiation tests on human hair. Some considerations include how much money a department wants to spend per employee and what drugs it wishes to test for.
Three methods of urine testing are available. Each has its own quantitative and qualitative results. The first method, known as thin layer chromatography, is the least expensive and the least reliable. This test costs between S8 and S15 and is best for detecting high doses of recently used drugs. The courts do not recognize this method of testing as forensic-quality evidence. For this reason, positive results should be confirmed by using another test method. This test has a high incidence of false negatives (negative results when drugs are present).
Another type of urinalysis is known as enzyme immunoassay/radioimmunoassay. This test is 50 to 100 times more sensitive than thin layer chromatography and costs S17 to S 20 per employee. It is known for providing false positives (positive tests when no drugs are present) with certain legal drugs that are similar in chemical makeup to some illegal drugs. As in the thin layer test, a follow-up test should be done on all positive findings as an added precaution.
The third type of urine test is die gas chromatography! mass spectroscopy test. It is the most reliable, at a cost of about S60 per person. It is 1,000 times more sensitive than the thin layer test and provides forensic-quality results. Because of its accurate results and ability to test nearly any level of most drugs, this is the best test. However, the high cost makes it undesirable for departmentwide screenings.
Other tests are available for drug detection use. Saliva can be used to test for a limited number of drugs. A new method under study is the radiation of a person’s hair sample. This test not only shows what drugs were taken but, unlike urinalysis, can tell when the drugs were ingested.
An important issue in the reliability of testing is the rising number of false positives caused by legal nonprescription drugs. Common over-the-counter products such as Alka-Seltzer, Contac, and Nyquil can produce results similar to those produced by prescription and/ or illegal drugs.
The reliability’ of testing labs is another concern. According to H.J. Hansen (JAMA, April 1985), studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) show that when samples of drugspiked urine were submitted to various labs for evaluation (without the labs’ knowledge), some labs reported false negatives in 100 percent of the samples and false positives in 66 percent of the samples provided. The CDC attributes this lack of quality control to the absence of any national certification for testing labs. Therefore, the CDC recommends that each organization devise its own method of quality control.
Kits are on the market that allow an organization to test its testing lab. They contain a substance identical to urine spiked with compounds that simulate various drugs. Organizations that have used this technique to test their lab and found false test results reported a 100 percent correction in subsequent tests once they notified the lab of the error. A health or crime lab in the fire department’s jurisdiction would be an obvious choice for a testing facility. However, these labs often are not set up to handle a large volume of tests.
A new finding in the drug screening process shows an unusually high number of false positives in dark-skinned people. It seems that the skin pigment melanin looks like and is often mistaken for TI1C, a by-product of the body produced from marijuana smoke. Even the most sophisticated testing processes occasionally make this mistake, and currently there are no methods to determine if a positive is a true or a false positive.
PROGRAMS NEED SUPPORT
Not one drug testing program has gone uncontested by its target group. Whether a formal lawsuit or an in-house grievance was filed, all testing programs have met with resistance. The unions see the tests as a way to slim down their ranks or they see it as leading to union busting.
The accepted programs have been those that place an employee in an employee assistance program (EAP) rather than those that require an automatic dismissal. Some welcome the use of department-sponsored EAFs, but many unions see them as management’s way to undermine the union’s authority. Firefighters also may not trust department-sponsored EAPs, believing they do not guarantee privacy.
The union-sponsored EAP is a system that has been accepted by management and many unions. It works best if the union has a large membership or can jointly sponsor an EAP with other neighboring unions. These programs can be self-policing, with no interference from management. Some unions require an employee to submit to a drug test prior to membership and at subsequent intervals. In some cases, those found to be using drugs are referred to the EAP without management’s knowledge. Management periodically can audit the EAP to ensure compliance. This audit is done without releasing employees’ names to ensure confidentiality.
Drug testing programs have a long way to go before they gain universal acceptance. Although the number of testing options is growing, the chances of obtaining a false reading are still quite high. Forensic-quality tests are available, but at a high cost per employee. These high costs could influence fire department management to opt for the less expensive test at the risk of less accuracy.
In addition to the high costs of the tests, management must also be prepared for legal costs. Lawsuits and grievances are sure to arise from test methods, results, and the invasion of privacy issue. The legal ramifications of an unwarranted dismissal or false test result should be enough to scare management into not going into a testing program haphazardly.
What about the effect on the employee? Should management be concerned about a drug the employee used 30 days ago on his day off? This is a legal argument often made by unions that may or may not have merit. What about morale? Will the quest for a drug-free workplace be an improvement or a detriment to it? Negative feelings often surface whenever a testing program is proposed or put in place. For the good of the department and the employee, carefully consider these issues before selecting and implementing a testing program.
Bibliography
Ronald J. Peterson, “The Ins and Outs of Implementing a Successful Drug Testing Program,” Personnel (October 1987).
Peter M. Stein and Peter S. Gray, “Truth in Drug Testing,” Across the Board (May 1988).
Nick Nykodym and Diane M. Samerdyke-Traband, “Put Drug Detection to the Test,” Personnel Journal (August 1987).
G.G. Deangelos, “Testing and Screening for Drugs of Abuse,” Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1976.
H.J. Hansen et al., “Crisis in Drug Testing,” JAMA (April 1985).
Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, April 9, 1986.
