Pubdate: Mon, 16 Oct 2006
Source: Union, The (Grass Valley, CA)
Copyright: 2006 The Union
Contact:  http://www.theunion.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/957
Author: Dave Moller
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Test)

DRUG USE IN THE WORKPLACE TARGETED

Drug-Free Work Week, Local Group Focus On
Need For Testing, Education

Jim Phelps is always surprised at employers who tell him they don't
have any drug problems in their business.

"That's because drugs aren't a problem until it's a problem," said
Phelps, of Community Recovery Resources and the Coalition For a
Drug-Free Nevada County. Phelps and Barbara Bashall of the Nevada
County Contractors Association know that drugs in the workplace is a
large problem here, and that's why they went before the Board of
Supervisors recently to discuss it.

The pair also wanted to draw attention to Oct. 16-22, which is the
U.S. Department of Labor's Drug-Free Work Week. All across the
country, employers and employees will be asked to implement programs
to make their workplaces drug free.

Supervisor Nate Beason had seen such a program work when he served as
a captain in the U.S. Navy.

"It was a serious problem, and I saw it go to a manageable situation,"
Beason said.

"Most of our businesses have 10 or fewer employees, and they know
their people," Phelps said. But if one of their children is using
drugs and they are missing work because of it, the business suffers
indirectly.

"We want to let them know where to go for information," Phelps said.
"Right now we have an employer whose employee has a spouse getting out
of prison for meth, and they wanted to know what they could do for
her."

The coalition recently did a local drugs-in-the-workplace survey to
find out what was going on and what employers need.

"It showed a lot have a written policy but don't go to the next step,
which is training for management and drug testing," Phelps said.

County employers don't want or need another marketing campaign about
drugs, Phelps said.

"What they need is information to make educated decisions on what to
do. We (CORR and the coalition) try to tell them what services are out
there for recovery, where do they go to get a drug test or to find
counseling."

Phelps said the No. 1 drawback for employers is their perception that
if they start drug testing, they won't have any employees left.

"Case studies show testing helps, and there is less turnover," Phelps
said.

Initial employee drug tests are the best, Phelps said, because they
scare off most drug users who would come into a workplace. National
statistics show that almost 72 percent of drug users are employed.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, illicit drug users avoid
large companies, with 87 percent of them working for small businesses
with 24 employees or less or medium-sized businesses with less than
500 employees.

Drug tests can also come into play when there are accidents or
suspicion of use, Phelps said. When an employer suspects an employee
is using, "don't diagnose, document," particularly if a worker's
quality, performance level or attendance falls off.

"Most employees welcome it," Phelps said of drug testing. "They're
sick of covering for people" who are using drugs or drinking on the
job.

Phelps said random drug testing is not as effective as people might
think and can become expensive for employers because of its frequency.
However, those who employ drivers would probably find it a good idea.

Drug tests usually deal with illicit drugs like methamphetamine, "but
alcohol is still our No. 1 problem," Phelps said, adding that
prescription drug abuse in the workplace is rising.

"People drink because it legal, but that makes it a lot easier to
abuse," Phelps said.

CORR does drug tests for local firms for $35 apiece, compared to $55
to $75 at other places. The test looks for marijuana; opiates,
including pain pills like Vicodin; amphetamines and cocaine.

If a person tests positive, CORR often steps in and starts counseling
people about usage, Phelps said. CORR uses a credentialed person to
run drug tests and must do so in order to keep federal funding.

Bashall said employers not looking for drug abuse are asking for it.
She cited the recent example of Susan Wallace suing the employer of
Fred Engel, who was found guilty of trying to kill her last May in her
Nevada City home after cleaning her carpets just days before.

Wallace's suit said the carpet cleaning firm Engel worked for did not
screen him properly, and it came out in his trial testimony that he
was on methamphetamine at the time of the attack. It culminated with
him setting Wallace's house on fire.

"Employers should ask themselves if they want to risk their businesses
that way," Bashall said. "You could be putting your business at risk
by hiring someone who commits a crime while working under the
influence," or even off duty.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek