GROUP PROTESTS DRUG TESTING POLICY

Random Screening Intrusive and Ineffective, Government Workers Say

About 100 State Department employees are protesting the federal
government's policy of random drug testing, charging that the
practice is not a cost-effective deterrent and is an unwarranted
invasion of the privacy of workers who have nothing to do with
national security.

Calling themselves the Defenders of the Fourth Amendment, the group
is wearing buttons with scarlet D's -- as in RDT, or random drug
testing -- to signal their opposition.

Some said they would refuse to take the test.

They are challenging a 15-year-old policy, one that federal officials
believed they had fine-tuned to the courts', if not the unions',
satisfaction.

"The issue is one of morale, the issue is one of injustice to an
individual," said Jon Schaffer, an Office of International
Information Programs manager who was called recently to take a random
test. "They argue it is a deterrent. I would question that. I feel
this is a waste of taxpayers' money."

Schaffer took the test. But one woman, a program officer in OIIP, was
suspended for three days without pay when she failed to come in for a
random test last fall. She was telecommuting from her home near
Fredericksburg and she said she had no car that day.

Many employees challenging the policy worked for the U.S. Information
Agency and were not subject to drug testing until parts of USIA
merged with State in 1999.

They want the policy suspended for those whose jobs are not
sensitive, and they want the agency to negotiate with the employee
unions to iron out issues involving telecommuters.

Their protest has highlighted the fact that a mere one-half of 1
percent of workers at the State Department fail the test, a trend
mirrored in the rest of the government and which is far lower than
that of the private sector.

That rate holds true for both random and applicant screening, the two
major components of the government's drive to keep federal offices
drug-free.

"There's a certain cosmetic quality to this whole program," said
George Clack, a team leader for print publications at OIIP who was
tested in October. "Computers were disappearing from the State
Department while people like Robert Hanssen are being employed at the
FBI, and people who have no reason to be dealing with high-security
things are being subjected to random drug tests."

The Cost of Sending a Message So why spend $104,000 at State and
$10.7 million government-wide annually on a program that identifies
no more than 400 possible drug users out of 1.8 million workers?
Because, officials say, drug testing is a deterrent.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney in January took a drug test
to show their support for the program. Since they took office, 127
White House employees have been randomly tested -- none failing.

"Random testing will send a message that an individual, if they use
drugs, has a reasonable possibility of being detected," said Robert
L. Stephenson, director of the division of workplace programs at the
Health and Human Services' Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. "It
sends a signal to a person who is even thinking of using illegal
drugs that they are putting their jobs in jeopardy."

But some industry consultants say the private sector is moving away
from the practice, preferring other methods, such as testing on the
basis of "reasonable suspicion" or after an accident.

"Most employers are finding they're not getting the return on
investment they thought they would," said Eugene F. Ferraro, chief
executive of Business Controls Inc., which helps Fortune 500
companies develop drug programs and policies and conduct undercover
investigations of employees suspected of drug use.

The American Management Association, which annually surveys major
U.S. firms on a host of issues, reports that workplace drug testing
has declined over the past five years to save money and because of a
tight labor market.

Eric Rolfe Greenberg, a statistician for the association, said that
after surveying firms on workplace drug testing every year from 1987
to 1996, he could make no statistical case that screening acts as a
deterrent.

"We saw test-positive rates remain constant; we did not see a
decrease," he said. "If it remains the same, how can you make an
argument for a deterrent? It should go down."

Defining the Testing Pool The battle over drug testing stretches back
to 1986, when President Ronald Reagan issued an executive order
declaring that the federal workplace be drug-free. Since then, legal
challenges have whittled the number of employees subject to testing
to those in "sensitive" positions, that is, workers who have security
clearances, who carry firearms or who deal with public safety or
national security or who are presidential appointees.

The Supreme Court has upheld the legality of federally mandated drug
testing, while not specifically ruling on random testing, holding
that the government's interest in public safety and national security
outweighs the individual's right to be free from a governmental
search. And it has declined to hear several appeals of lower court
decisions upholding random testing in the federal workplace.

Some government officials say the tests have been so successful as a
deterrent that they have reduced the scope of testing.

At the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for instance, spokeswoman
Beth Hayden said the annual failure rate is so low -- one or two out
of 800 -- that the agency has gone from testing its entire
1,670-person pool to half. She said pre-employment testing and
stringent background checks contribute to the low rate.

At the State Department, 12,400 out of 26,000 employees are in the
testing pool.

That includes everyone with security clearances, including
secretaries, though half are overseas and are not tested. Of the
other half subject to testing, about 600 to 700 are called each year.

Union officials argue that because minorities and women
disproportionately occupy the civil service and because they
disproportionately occupy the lower levels of the civil service, the
policy affects them most. They are also upset that the overseas
foreign service staff is not drug-tested.

Gary Galloway, vice president of the American Federation of
Government Employees Local 1534 at the State Department, said he has
worked with eight employees who tested positive between 1996 and
2000. Five were lower-level clerical employees, a sixth was an
administrative officer with office management duties, a seventh was a
printing specialist and an eighth was a procurement agent, he said.

None had staff to manage or were in a position to shape policy. All
were minorities. All but one were women.

Barbara Long, a graphic designer who passed a random test a few
months ago, said the urgency of the call and the brusqueness of the
nurse jarred her.

"I feel that I was treated as if I were guilty until proven
innocent," she said.

State Department officials say they strive to create a friendly test
environment.

Cedric E. Dumont, personnel medical director for the State
Department, said that when USIA merged with State, the unions did not
object to the drug testing policy.

He said the former USIA employees were included in the testing pool
because, like himself, they might be asked to join a meeting at which
classified material is discussed.