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."