Source: Guardian, The (UK)
Contact:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Pubdate: Sat, 03 Oct 1998

MORE FACE RANDOM DRUG TESTS AT WORK

Nick Hopkins on how Prince Andrew may be one of many randomly checked, as
industry tries to plug UKP3bn losses from drug-related illness

Michelle de Bruin, the Olympic gold medallist from Ireland, was caught out
in a dawn drugs raid at home, though she protests her innocence. But for
Prince Andrew there was no such humiliation when he took the test two weeks
ago for the Ministry of Defence.

For sports people and the military, random drugs tests have been a fact of
life for years. But anyone who imagined that strict rules on substance
abuse applied only to certain professions, had better think again.

Random tests could be coming to a workplace near you. Some companies, such
as London Transport and Railtrack, already have them for safety reasons.
And there are signs that corporate Britain is waking up to the advantages
too, as firms look for ways to cut the staggering UKP3 billion lost every
year to drink and drug related illness.

Although the drugs testing is a civil liberties minefield, the Health and
Safety Executive is quietly encouraging businesses to act, and Tessa
Jowell, the Health Minister, is considering all options for the forthcoming
White Paper, Our Healthier Nation.

The Government will doubtless look to the United States for a lead, where
random screening is commonplace. Medscreen, which does drug testing for
companies all over Europe, already has 300 big clients in the UK, and says
the market is expanding rapidly. Medscreen mainly does pre-employment drug
screening, but recently has noticed a shift among companies towards random
tests.

"To a certain extent, the pre-tests are to weed out idiots," said Fiona
Begley, Medscreen's sales and marketing manager. "If a person cannot stay
off drugs or alcohol during the selection process, either they have a
serious problem, or they are too stupid to employ."

The random tests are more telling, and keep employees on their guard.
Workers cannot easily hide a problem when a test is sprung at short notice,
and those who use drugs recreationally are just as vulnerable. The clubber
who takes ecstasy on a Saturday night is just as likely to be caught out as
a heroin addict, if the test is done within three days. And cannabis, being
stored in fat, does not flush out of the body easily; the residue from a
joint can linger for up to 31 days. "The tests are extremely sensitive, and
will pick up almost any kind of recent abuse, however mild," said Ms Begley.

Testing is a two-stage process. The first involves an 'immunoassay'
screening, which identifies any of the main drug groups, such as cocaine,
cannabis, barbiturates, amphetamines and opiates, present in a urine
sample. If positive, there is a second, more comprehensive test, involving
gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS).

"It provides a chemical finger print," said Ms Begley. "It will pinpoint
the kind of drug that has been used and eliminate false positives. The GCMS
differentiates between legal and illegal drugs."

The tests, she said, do not discriminate between the casual user and the
addict. "We are searching for traces of substances. The tests cannot assess
quantity or regularity of use. Companies want to know if workers are taking
substances that could impair their ability."

At London Transport, a tenth of the 16,000 staff will be tested every year.
"If positive, workers will be brought before a disciplinary board, charged
with gross misconduct, and asked to explain how the drug got into their
system," said Nigel Radcliff, who coordinates the testing. "If there is not
a good medical reason, the chances are they will be dismissed."

Cannabis users are caught frequently. "There might be sympathy for someone
who claims they only smoked a joint at a party, but there is no leeway in
the policy. You cannot smoke dope and work for the underground."

Mr Radcliff said employees who confess to a drug or alcohol problem before
they are tested stand the best chance of keeping their jobs. "The golden
rule is own up before you get caught."

There has been concern over the inflexibility of the tests. Last year, an
industrial tribunal in Glasgow called for Railtrack to review its procedure
after a signal man, Ian Patterson, claimed unfair dismissal. Mr Patterson,
aged 32 and described by colleagues as loyal and enthusiastic, was sacked
when traces of cannabis were found in his blood. He said he might have
inhaled cannabis through passive smoking at a party, or had his food spiked.

The tribunal ruled in favour of Railtrack, saying dismissal was not
unreasonable, in terms of public safety demands, but the judgment described
the case as "particularly troubling".

Medscreen insists the tests are sophisticated enough to distinguish between
passive and "proper" smoking, but says that with cannabis they are
"non-time specific", which can give misleading results.

Liberty, the civil liberties group, has cautioned against random drug
testing for "vetting and disciplinary purposes". But Keith Hellawell, the
Government's chief drugs adviser, recently called for routine testing of
emergency service and hospital staff.

"I'm not talking about penalistic policies, but for recognition of the
dangers that drugs can cause and acceptance by the workforce that there is
benefit for everyone in having a comprehensive policy," he told a
conference in Birmingham.

Concern about the introduction of random tests is growing. Advice on 'how
to pass a piss test' was recently posted on the Internet. 
- ---
Checked-by: Mike Gogulski