CONSTRUCTION TRADE HOPES DRUG TESTS SAVE LIVES

Unions, Owners Try To Develop A Policy That Works For Everyone

The facts about drug and alcohol use are sobering to those in the
construction industry.

Someone under the influence faces twice the risk of on-the-job injury as a
clear-headed worker; construction workers are more likely to abuse drugs
and alcohol than any other employee group; and no industry has a higher
on-the-job injury rate.

So it's with a special urgency that the St. Louis construction industry has
spent more than a decade developing a uniform drug and alcohol policy,
revolving mainly around drug testing.

The task has not been easy. Building owners, construction companies and
labor groups have different agendas and goals.

And yet a policy has evolved, pushed by the Associated General Contractors
of St. Louis and PRIDE of St. Louis. The contractors group partially
credits the policy for a notable achievement: no construction site deaths
among member companies in 2002.

The policy requires new construction workers to take a urine drug test. It
allows for random drug and alcohol testing on each job site, too. And drug
tests can be ordered when an employee is suspected of being under the
influence.

Workers who test negative - meaning no drugs or alcohol - are put into a
pool of drug-tested workers. More than 15,000 are in the pool today, the
Associated General Contractors said. For workers who test positive, local
union trade groups offer drug- and alcohol-abuse programs.

Most in the industry say they had little choice but to impose drug testing.

"We're involved in an industry that is fraught with inherent danger to
begin with," said Jim Boone, risk manager for Alberici Constructors of
Hillsdale. A person under the influence "may be placing the lives or the
fortunes of six, eight or 10 people in jeopardy."

Indeed, a Cornell University study in 2000 concluded that job-site injuries
fell 51 percent within two years after construction companies implemented
drug testing.

There's also a significant financial incentive, said Joe Rinke, co-chair of
PRIDE. "One accident by an impaired worker can be extremely costly in lives
and money and equipment."

While virtually everyone agrees that someone under the influence poses a
danger, creating a uniform set of rules locally has been a bit like herding
cats. Not all labor groups or owners have been willing to follow the policy.

Some labor leaders have resisted, arguing that it violates their members'
civil rights.

"Personally, I have a problem with mandatory testing. It rubs me the wrong
way," said Steve Schoemehl, business manager of International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local 1, in St. Louis.

Schoemehl, who emphasized that he was speaking for himself on drug testing,
said he was concerned about voluntary testing as well. "As soon as you
don't do it, they assume you're guilty."

But all local unions, including the IBEW, have agreed to drug testing in
some fashion. Electricians are not required to take a test. But those who
refuse face a large workplace hurdle: They are not allowed to work at sites
where drug tests are required.

So far, 78 percent of Local 1 members have voluntarily agreed to be tested,
a figure Schoemehl expects to rise as more project owners draw solely from
the drug-tested pool.

Other unions, such as Sheet Metal Workers, Local 36, mandate testing. "It
is an infringement of rights, but everybody deserves to go to work and come
home at night," said David Zimmerman, president and business manager.

"After we put this into effect, I received a couple of anonymous letters
from members' wives, thanking us for taking care of a problem they couldn't
handle on their own," he said.

Still, St. Louis construction industry insiders figure that a uniform drug
and alcohol policy won't come until all building owners agree on the same
set of standards.

"We have some owners who are absolutely adamant about substance-abuse
testing," said Jim Stone, vice president of safety and risk management for
Alberici. "We have some owners who could care less about it."

Both ends of the spectrum are a concern to leaders of the Associated
General Contractors and PRIDE. Testing is expensive - up to $80 a test,
plus lost work hours - and intrusive to employees. Not testing increases
the risk of drug-or alcohol-related accidents and injuries.

"We recognize that owners make their own decisions. What we're trying to do
is influence them and keep them all together," said Dennis Lavallee,
executive director of the St. Louis Council of Construction Consumers.

Lavallee's group represents some of the region's biggest companies and
institutions, including Anheuser-Busch Cos., Washington University,
Monsanto Co. and Boeing Co.

Owners who don't require tests - especially random drug testing - typically
are looking to save money, a short-sighted strategy, Boone said.

"I really don't think of it in terms of a cost," Boone said. "I think of it
as an investment by the project owner and contractor. If you eliminate one
serious accident or injury because you have weeded out one potential
worker, you have been paid back in multiples."

That message appears to be taking hold from the top of the construction
industry to apprenticeship programs and trade schools.

To be accepted into the apprenticeship program for the International Union
of Bricklayers, Local 1, in St. Louis, an applicant must pass a drug test.

"Our concern is not just them, it's everybody else who's on the job," said
Tim Corcoran, coordinator of the apprenticeship program. "If you go down in
construction, you many be down for a long time, and your family will suffer."