HIGH ON THE JOB

Is Random Drug Testing An Essential For Workplace Safety Or Is It An
Unnecessary Intrusion Into Workers' Lives.

At first you think it's a joke from your workmates.

An email appears from your employers saying you've been selected to
take part in a random drug test.

You feel a sweat break out on your brow. The timing is unbelievable.
It was only a couple of nights ago you and your partner smoked a few
joints. Had a nice old blowout after a hard day. Now this happens.

You go to a medical laboratory to give your urine sample and feel as
though you might as well be cutting your own throat. You drink a lot
of water beforehand in the vain hope it might make a difference.

The next week is hellish as you wait for the bad news. Then it
happens. You are called into the boss' office. The moment you see the
look on his face you know you're in deep strife.

Ten Wel Networks tradesmen had a very similar experience last month.
They failed random tests given to 100 of the company's staff. Eight
of the 10 had cannabis in their system, one had taken methamphetamine
and one a prescribed medication. They were all stood down from their
jobs without pay. Their lives and the lives of their families had
been turned upside down.

It's a situation we can expect to see more of as drug testing in
Waikato workplaces has followed international trends and taken off in
the past five years.The practice has been encouraged by laws imposing
stringent responsibilities on employers to ensure the safety of their staff.

Pre-employment testing and testing as part of investigations into
workplace accidents is most common. Crown researcher, the Institute
of Environmental Science and Research (ESR), which tests for nearly
1000 companies, says 74 per cent of that is pre-employment testing.
At this stage only 15 per cent of that is the newer random testing
adopted this year by Wel Networks.

Such testing has taken off since Air New Zealand won a court case
four years ago allowing it to randomly test employees in
safety-sensitive areas of its operation.

Employers say drug testing is a fact of life given the need for safe
workplaces.

But not everyone is happy about it. Some question whether random
testing for traces of cannabis in urine is fair given that the
cannabis may have been smoked days or weeks ago. After such a delay
how can it possibly be impairing performance at work?

Some says the testing is an intrusion into people's private lives.
When employees clock off for the day, are their actions any business
of their employer?

Kiwis don't seem to be good with drugs.

For some years New Zealand has had one of the highest rates of
ecstasy and amphetamine use in the world.

ESR estimates that between six and 10 per cent of the country's
population is alcohol or drug dependent. ESR's workplace drug testing
programme manager Shelli Turner says more than 70 per cent of drug
users have jobs, so they could be putting themselves at risk in the workplace.

ESR quotes two US studies of postal workers and navy staff showing
new employees who tested positive for drugs ended up having higher
rates of absenteeism, turnover, more medical claims and worse
disciplinary records.

The ESR says samples collected for workplace and prison drug testing
have increased from 3000 samples to 40,000 samples in 10 years.

The New Zealand Drug Detection Agency has also seen "exponential
growth", particularly since the Air New Zealand case, says director Kirk Hardy.

Both organisations find cannabis is the common drug but amphetamine
use is growing fast.

"Safety-critical" industries targeted for testing include forestry,
transportation, dairy, fishing/shipping, roading, aluminium and
steel, meat and poultry, mining, construction, engineering, oil,
power and energy, manufacturing, defence, tourism and personnel/education.

That potentially covers hundreds of thousands of New Zealand workers.

Te Rapa aluminium extrusion company Inex is one Waikato company which
has developed drug and alcohol programmes.

Human resources projects manager Sam Ware says the motivation for the
move was purely safety.

"We've got a factory where we have a lot of potentially dangerous
equipment and obviously we don't want it to be operated by people
under the influence of drugs or alcohol."

In October 2006 chief executive John Lynch wrote to Inex's 200
employees explaining the policy requiring all staff and contractors
to maintain a zero-risk blood-alcohol level and drug-free level in
the workplace. It applies to all staff; not just those on the factory floor.

An education programme was held: four hours for supervisors and one
hour for staff. Staff who felt they had issues were given assistance.

Drug testing involves pre-employment tests, post accident tests and
reasonable cause tests where there is a suspicion a staff member is
impaired by drugs or alcohol.

The company uses a medical centre to conduct its tests or has an ESR
certified tester come in.

Ware says the company saw no need to introduce random tests and staff
have reacted very positively to the policy.

Random testing of employees is a controversial issue.

Wel Networks operations manager Russell Shaw says the policy has been
well received by about 95 per cent of staff, with many thinking it
was "not hard-line enough".

"Then you've got the small percentage of people, who are obviously
using drugs, who have been fairly open in their criticism of it and
believe it's an invasion of their personal life."

He says Wel stands by its policy because it is crucial that field
staff, who work on dangerous sites with live wires and in control of
digging machinery, are safe at work.

"We value our staff very highly and I'd like to think we're quite a
caring organisation."

But not everyone is happy with the trend. Chris Fowlie, president of
marijuana decriminalisation advocacy group Norml, says obviously
workers shouldn't be stoned on the job. But he has many problems with
the drug testing. "If it's random, it is breaking the Bill of Rights.
It puts the onus on people to prove they are innocent."

But he has an even bigger problem with the methodology of the
testing. All the urine tests do is show the presence of cannabis in
the system, not that there is any impairment, he says.

"All they can prove is that some time in the past you have had some.
That's the fundamental problem. So it discriminates against the cannabis user."

Fowlie says the urine test only detects the presence of the THC
inactive metabolite which is stored in fat cells. It has nothing to
do with impairment.

"You can test positive for a smoke a day or even a week ago when
there is no way it is impairing your performance."

If authorities want to test for impairment, Fowlie says there are
better ways and computer simulation programmes or field sobriety
tests are far superior.

Fowlie suggests the methodology for collecting samples for random
tests could be tested in court in the future.

"We're talking about something over half the population have tried,
the vast majority do it at home in the weekend."

Norml's website suggests ways to try to beat drug tests.

The Hemp Store in Auckland even sells synthetic urine imported from
the US to aid people cheating the test.

The Times talked to one professional Hamilton man with a family who
says he has smoked cannabis nightly for 15 years. He was not
impressed with the suspension of the Wel Networks workers.

"It's an intrusion on people's human rights for their employers to
tell them what they can and can't do in their private life."

He sees double standards being applied between cannabis and alcohol.

"These linesman, these guys are in dangerous situations but I don't
buy into this theory about the residual effects of cannabis. It
doesn't affect my job. I would argue that someone who's had a heavy
session is still gong to be better off than someone who's badly hungover.

"If you are going to come into work hungover then there's no way you
can do your job properly. Anyone who gets stoned on the job is an
idiot. But what I do in my time is my business."

He says suggestions that people can struggle a day after smoking is a
myth perpetuated by those who are not cannabis smokers.

He has a friend who has quit his job because drug testing was brought
in at his workplace.

"If it gets brought into my workplace I would resign because I'm not
having my employer telling me what to do in my own time. But I would
test it in the court first."

Nor is one of the country's biggest unions a fan of random testing.

Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union national secretary
Andrew Little says the union does not support random testing at all.

He says the problem with testing for cannabis is that it can remain
in the body for 10 days, "and yet, you wouldn't be impaired during
the bulk of that period".

Two years ago a visiting British researcher warned against pushing
drug testing too far in New Zealand. Edward Wray-Bliss from
Nottingham University Business School said while drug-testing was
presently aimed at high-risk jobs in New Zealand, this boundary was
being stretched internationally.

In the US 70 per cent of big companies have instituted
across-the-board drug testing for employees.

Wray-Bliss also disputed whether the tests could pick up on-the-job impairment.

BUT NZDDA director Kirk Hardy says the issue is not whether workers
are impaired but whether they are at risk.

Government legislation says companies have to manage the hazard of
drugs and alcohol within and outside of work.

"There are many habitual users of cannabis, many of whom have a joint
before they go to work each day and at night as well." And there are
other ways people are affected by recreational drug use.

He gives the example of a P user who takes the drug on a Friday after work.

"They come down after a day and then they don't sleep well. By the
time they get to work on Monday they are severely fatigued."

Hardy says there is a misconception that cannabis always stays in the
system for a long time. But a casual user could have a smoke on
Friday and traces of cannabis could be gone by Monday.

However, with chronic use cannabis does stay in the system. He
recounts the story of a daily user of cannabis oil who smoked for 30
years but wanted to change his lifestyle. It took five weeks of
testing before cannabis finally vanished from his system.

"The guys who are changing their lifestyle actually say to us 'I
should have done this years ago'."

Hardy emphasises that the random tests are only for employees in
high-risk occupations.

"It shouldn't be used as a form of witch-hunt or big brother."

Also, businesses intending to introduce a drug testing policy should
take their time and carefully consult staff.

"It's really important that it's not rushed. It has to be a very fair
process so they can ask questions about why. It also gives time for
self-referral and for employees to get some sort of help if they need it."

"You don't want to implement a drug testing policy and scare your
workforce and have 10 per cent walk out. Do it properly and you won't
lose staff."

Employment lawyer Andrea Twaddle says employers should carefully
weigh the costs involved in implementing a drug testing regime,
including significant time consulting employees, preparing a policy
and educating employees. "The introduction of drug testing will often
be seen by employees as eroding the relationship of trust and
confidence. Therefore, random testing should be carefully considered
before an employer reaches a determination it is warranted."

The Wel Networks staff stood down last month were referred for
counselling and seven have returned to work.

The other three are still on unpaid leave.

Despite debates about the fairness or appropriateness of drug
testing, there is a clear momentum. With random testing growing in
popularity more Waikato workers will find themselves exposed like the
Wel Networks tradesmen this month.

Employers call it caring, opponents call it intrusion; whoever is
right, employees' lifestyle out of hours is under the spotlight like
never before.