Pubdate: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 Source: Ledger, The (Lakeland, FL) Copyright: 2007 The Ledger Contact: http://www.theledger.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/795 Author: Gary White Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Test) JOB APPLICANT? EXPECT A DRUG TEST Despite The Costs, 84 Percent Of Employers Now Require Screenings As a human resources coordinator for a local company, Kathleen Rehberg faithfully carries out her employer's policy of regularly testing employees for illegal drug use. As an employee, the Mulberry resident also submits to the tests. And her experience makes her wonder whether drug testing is worth the time and money. Rehberg has received inconclusive results from her past three drug screenings, which followed the common procedure of analyzing a urine sample. She was told she had a diluted specimen, probably reflecting her habit of drinking at least 100 ounces of water a day, in keeping with her doctor's recommendation. The result counts as neither positive nor negative. It is supposed to trigger a retest, but Rehberg said her boss gives her the benefit of the doubt. She preferred not to identify her employer. Drug testing, legally required for many public employers, has become widespread in the private sector over the past two decades. A 2006 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 84 percent of employers required new hires to pass drug screenings, and 39 percent randomly tested employees after they were hired. In addition, 73 percent tested workers when drug use was suspected and 58 percent required testing after accidents on the job. Companies and government officials cite safety and deterrence as benefits of drug testing, but critics say the process is costly, ineffective and intrusive. A standard drug test involving a urine sample costs a company about $40, a price that produces a considerable sum when multiplied by hundreds or thousands of job applicants and employees. Some of Polk County's largest employers clearly consider it a reasonable expense. Publix Super Markets, which employs about 9,400 people in the county, requires a successful drug screening before hiring, and spokeswoman Shannon Patten said the company also performs random testing of its workforce. State Farm Insurance, with a Winter Haven regional office and 1,736 employees in Polk, also does pre-employment testing, and spokeswoman Michal Connolly said the company reserves the option of testing workers suspected of illegal drug use. Local government entities conduct drug tests as a requirement of federal and state laws. The city of Lakeland, for example, screens potential new employees and randomly tests workers based on their job duties, according to spokesman Kevin Cook. While the phrase "drug testing" suggests a wide net cast for all harmful substances, some say the tests are much more likely to detect marijuana than harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin. The latter drugs are water soluble and pass through the body quickly - - cocaine and methamphetamine generally within 72 hours and heroin within 24 hours, according to Celena Goode, office manager at Bartow-based testing company Medi-Test. The residue of marijuana, by contrast, is stored in fat cells, and Goode said it can remain in the body for 45 days. And most employees aren't tested for alcohol, a legal drug. "A policy that screens out marijuana users while allowing drinkers is arguably counterproductive, since alcohol intoxication - unlike marijuana - produces hangovers that can significantly impair job performance the next day, and alcohol is by any measure far more toxic and far more addictive than marijuana," said Bruce Mirken, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. "We know, according to government surveys, close to 15 million Americans use marijuana at least monthly and somewhere close to 100 million have tried it, and that collection includes the last two presidents of the United States, the mayor of New York City. ... Would you really want to screen those people from your applicant pool?" The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida has challenged drug testing of some public employees, and the group has prevailed in two court cases (see related story). But legal director Randall Marshall said it's much more difficult to challenge drug testing in the private sector. Given the cost of drug screening, its prevalence among private employers might seem surprising. Aside from their stated reasons for testing, many companies also receive discounts on health insurance or workers' compensation coverage. Keymark of Florida, a manufacturer of aluminum products, doesn't qualify for the workers' compensation discount at its Lakeland office because the company is based in New York. But Ron Waite, human resources and safety manager, considers the money the firm spends on drug testing to be worth it. Waite said Keymark screens applicants before they're hired and does random testing of employees, some of whom operate potentially dangerous equipment. He said about 5 percent of the tests come up positive, and in those cases the company usually gives the employee the opportunity to keep his job by submitting to treatment. "We don't want anybody high on drugs around here operating our equipment," Waite said. "Our program I think serves its purpose. It serves as a deterrent. Obviously we're not going to catch everybody, but we think it's a worthwhile program." Not all employers choose to test for drug use. Webster University, a Missouri-based network with a campus in Lakeland, does not screen potential hires or test employees, said Sandra Chamberlain, senior director of the Lakeland and Brandon campuses. "I am sure it is only partially because of cost," Chamberlain said. "Mainly, it is because of the unlikelihood of hiring a professor or staff person who is taking drugs. Not that we're immune to drug problems - in the past, we have employed people who had some problems, but ... I think that would be caught as poor workmanship or something of that nature and they'd be discharged because of those reasons." While urinalysis is by far the most common method, saliva tests, blood sampling and hair examination are also used to detect the presence of drugs. Many products and strategies exist to mask drugs in a urine sample - an Internet search for "beat urine test" yields more than 1 million results - whereas the hair exam is considered virtually foolproof and Goode says detects any drug use within 90 days. Hair testing costs about 60 percent more than urinalysis and is not offered by all testing services. Goode said some local companies require hair testing for potential new employees, ensuring abstinence from drugs dating back three months. She said the companies revert to urine testing for workers after that initial screening. Rehberg recently attended a national seminar of human resources professionals at which a speaker asked whether their companies did drug testing. She said most of the roughly 40 in the room raised their hands. When the speaker asked how many used the hair-follicle method, only one hand went up. "The only test in which there's no way to cheat is the hair-follicle test," Rehberg said. Gary Weinstein has a distinctive view of the subject. Weinstein owns Target Testing, a Lakeland company that manages drug tests. Its clients range from companies screening potential employees to parents concerned about their children's possible drug use. Weinstein acknowledges that the common urine test is not tamper proof. "There are ways to cheat; we can't keep all dishonest people from cheating," Weinstein said. "We don't do strip searches, and witnessing (urine tests) is not our customary procedure. We tell them no purses, no pocketbooks or briefcases, but if they manage to find a way slip a baggie between their legs ..." Even so, Weinstein said the fear of detection makes drug testing a valuable tool for companies looking to avoid unsuitable workers. "If you don't do it, the word is out, 'Hey, you can work over here,'" he said. "You're going to get what you can get." - --- MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman