Pubdate: Mon, 01 Apr 2002
Source: Tallahassee Democrat (FL)
Copyright: 2002 Tallahassee Democrat.
Contact:  http://www.tdo.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/444
Author: Bill Cotterell

DRUG TESTS JUST ONE MORE THING TO PUT UP WITH

Have you ever encountered an issue that you should get all worried about 
but just can't?

Drug testing of state employees is such an idea.

Yes, there are civil liberties questions involved. Sure, there are privacy 
considerations. Of course, there's a cost-benefit equation that's never 
taken into account, not to mention some tough-on-crime posturing whenever 
drugs are mentioned. But, judging from the reaction of state employees and 
local legislators, people seem to have accepted the idea.

Last week, with no outcry from the ranks, the Department of Juvenile 
Justice began asking randomly selected employees for urine samples or 
telling them to wear an adhesive sweat patch. DJJ is the only state agency 
randomly testing employees for recreational pharmaceuticals - so far.

"Random drug testing of employees is part of our overall effort to raise 
the standards, safety and professionalism of the Department of Juvenile 
Justice," DJJ Secretary Bill Bankhead said. "Our public employees must be 
drug-free and set the right example for young people."

About 5 percent of the department's 5,000 employees will be subject to 
random testing each year. Once notified, they'll be given 24 hours to fill 
a cup - long enough to get a note from their doctors, if they're taking 
anything legal that might look bad, but not long enough to cleanse the 
kidneys of any pot residue.

Career Service employees will be given urine tests. Selected Exempt and 
Senior Management employees will get the patch, which stays on for five to 
seven days.

It would be an over-simplification to say state employees like it; more 
likely, they've come to accept drug tests as just one more thing they have 
to put up with.

Ex-Gov. Bob Martinez, declaring "you have to be a straight shooter" to work 
in his administration, took the first test himself. He passed, predictably, 
and went on to become the nation's drug czar after his defeat in 1990.

There was considerable argument in the Legislature, in the late 1980s, 
about what should constitute "reasonable cause" for requiring an employee 
to be tested. There was also some debate about what "safety-sensitive" 
state positions should have mandatory testing.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 
aggressively represented employees, in the Legislature and in court, in 
working out drug-testing rules. AFSCME negotiated with DJJ, assuring 
protections for double-checking positive tests - although the confirmation 
tests will be done at the employee's expense.

If they don't work directly with young offenders, drug-using employees will 
be offered one chance for treatment. But the department's police and 
youth-custody officers will be fired if they flunk a test.

DJJ also requires pre-employment testing for all Senior Management and 
Selected Exempt employees, as well as those in law enforcement or other 
"safety-sensitive" jobs. And, as in every state agency, employees showing 
signs of impairment can be required to give a sample.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens