Pubdate: Mon, 03 Dec 2001
Source: Tallahassee Democrat (FL)
Copyright: 2001 Tallahassee Democrat.
Contact:  http://www.tdo.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/444
Author: Bill Cotterell
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

CONTROVERSIAL DRUG TEST WON'T BE USED AT DJJ

Ever since Gov. Bob Martinez took the first employee drug test, the issue 
of who and how to check for clean kidneys has been a touchy topic.

State workers resent the implication that they might be abusing alcohol or 
illegal drugs. That's why the state's drug-free workplace law generally 
allows mandatory testing for employees in "safety sensitive" positions, 
like law enforcement, but otherwise limits urinalysis to cases of 
reasonable suspicion.

All in all, it seems to work pretty well. There hasn't been a witch hunt, 
with employees presumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent, nor 
has the Medellin cartel opened a drive-through window in the Capitol basement.

But the Department of Juvenile Justice recently tried to take the tests a 
big step beyond what we've known for the past 12 years. DJJ Secretary Bill 
Bankhead, a sponsor of the Martinez drug-testing policy when he was in the 
Legislature, wanted to make selected employees wear a "sweat patch" for 
seven days at a time - to see if their bodies were secreting any tell-tale 
signs of drug use.

Maybe it was the budget cuts that prevented it. Maybe an employee backlash 
changed his mind. Maybe department officials just figured that, unless you 
made people wear short-sleeved shirts or put the patch on their foreheads, 
there was no way to be sure they weren't secretly letting someone else 
secrete for them.

Whatever the reason, DJJ has relented and entered into an agreement to 
stick to urine testing. The department signed a "memorandum of agreement" 
with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees that 
calls off the patch patrol.

"We're in a business where we deal with a lot of youngsters who have 
problems with drugs, and I thought we should hold ourselves out as an 
example," Bankhead said. "As a general policy, I believe drug testing is 
good for folks in state government."

Suntia White, a DJJ food service worker in Marianna, said he and his 
coworkers "are totally against it" for two reasons. He said drugs aren't a 
problem among DJJ employees, who know they can be tested because their jobs 
are "safety sensitive," and that employees believe the patch wouldn't work 
anyway.

"They're not going to follow you around and check you every day for seven 
days," he said. "If you're using drugs, you could put it on somebody who's 
not, then bring it back."

The memo of agreement between AFSCME and DJJ recognizes "the necessity and 
importance of the employee drug-testing program" and still permits "random 
substance-abuse testing" in the department. The union also conceded "the 
benefits of the pre-employment, reasonable suspicion and random 
substance-abuse testing" to protect the kids.

Bankhead said DJJ backed off the patch "for some technical issues," as well 
as the current budget belt-tightening. But he said the special nature of 
working with juveniles at a critical juncture in their lives makes drug 
testing appropriate at DJJ.

"We certainly didn't mean an insult to employees," he said. "But if you ask 
most folks, they want to work in a drug-free workplace."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jackl