PUT IT TO THE TEST

Instead of expanding workplace drug testing, Florida lawmakers ought to be
doing an honest cost-benefit analysis of the current program.

Workplace drug testing is one of those war-on-drugs programs irresistible to
politicians. Mandatory drug testing gives lawmakers a way to prove they're
"doing something" about the drug problem regardless of its actual value.
That's why it's no surprise that a bill to expand Florida's drug-free
workplace program has been received warmly by the House, in spite of caution
flags raised by the Department of Insurance and the Department of Management
Services.

The Legislature initially established Florida's drug-free workplace program
in 1989 when mandatory drug testing was the promised panacea to make
productivity soar and workplaces safe. Since then, empirical evidence
indicates that off-the-job drug use by employees does not significantly
impact worker safety or productivity. But that hasn't stopped an attempt in
the Legislature to expand the current drug testing program. The bill,
sponsored by Rep. Evelyn Lynn, R-Ormond Beach, could aptly be called a drug
testing lab relief bill in the way it brazenly promotes their business.

Currently, employers in the private sector who join the drug-free workplace
program are given a 5 percent discount on their workers' compensation rates
in exchange for implementing a drug testing program. Lynn wants to give
employers a greater incentive to adopt drug testing because, as she points
out, in this tight labor market employers are having a tough time filling
vacancies with people who pass a drug test.

She's right that without added financial incentives employers might give up
drug testing -- especially if there are valuable employees in the market
whose off-the-job drug use wouldn't negatively impact their work. But is
this a valid argument for increasing drug testing?

The House version of the Florida Government Drug-Free Workplace Act would
have increased to 10 percent the workers' compensation discount to drug-free
workplaces. But the Department of Insurance objected, saying the increase
was without an actuarial basis. The department noted the substantial
discount would act as a unjustified subsidy to drug-free workplace employers
since there is no evidence that workers' compensation claims will be reduced
by 10 percent as a result of participation. To appease the department, Lynn
has agreed to change the bill to provide employers with a discount of not
less than 5 or more than 10 percent.

For employees, being subjected to an on-the-job drug test is not a pleasant
experience, but at least the current drug-free workplace law limits testing
in the public sector to cases of pre-employment screening for safety
sensitive positions, routine physicals and where there is reason to believe
an employee is impaired. The proposed legislation would significantly expand
some of these categories and add post- accident drug testing. Under the
bill, even an employee who is hurt because of someone else's carelessness
could be drug tested. And a positive result could lead to dismissal and the
loss of medical benefits.

The expansion of who may be tested has the Department of Management Services
raising constitutional concerns. DMS has rightly pointed out that
suspicionless drug testing violates the Fourth Amendment rights of public
sector employees.

In addition to being invasive and demoralizing, drug tests are of limited
use. They can't determine whether an employee has reported for work in an
impaired state. An employee who used illicit drugs over the weekend or even
on vacation weeks earlier may not be an upright citizen, but he is not
likely to adversely effect workplace safety or productivity.

Drug testing is a costly program for employers and a distasteful one for
employees. Rather than reflexively voting to increase drug testing, the
Legislature should be doing an honest cost-benefit analysis of the current
drug-free workplace program.