CSI DRUG-TESTING POLICY SHOULD MEET PRIVATE-SECTOR STANDARDS

The College of Southern Idaho wants to develop an employee drug-testing
policy. The question is how far its drug-testing policy should go.

CSI President Jerry Meyerhoeffer favors a policy that permits drug testing
after accidents and when there's probable cause to suspect an employee is
impaired. But Meyerhoeffer appears to oppose random testing, as well as
pre-employment testing.

That's roughly where many private-sector businesses were six or seven years
ago. Since then, many private employers -- including The Times-News -- have
added random and pre-employment testing to their overall drug-screening
policies. Smart employers couple this testing with an employee assistance
program, which provides counseling and other social support services.

Private-sector businesses do this because random testing works. It drives
drugs out of the work force. The same would hold true for public employers,
if they'd give it a chance.

Here's why drug testing is important: On any given day, somewhere between 5
percent and 10 percent of America's workers either are impaired or have a
detectable amount of drugs in their systems. That percent holds true for
all groups, including teachers, construction workers, lawyers and accountants.

In today's litigation-gone-mad society, employees with drugs in their
system are walking time bombs. If one is involved in an accident or
inappropriate behavior, the plaintiff's lawyer will almost inevitably aim
at the employer -- not the employee.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury," we can picture one saying, "this man's
employer failed to take the most rudimentary precautions to prevent this
terrible event from happening."

It's simple economics, because the employer usually has more money than the
janitor, secretary or teacher who may have caused the accident. Publicly
funded institutions should recognize this fact of modern life and take
steps to protect taxpayers, rather than drug users.

We understand that drug-testing can be seen as an affront to personal
dignity. No one welcomes a command to produce a urine sample. But anyone
who think that's unreasonable is free to look for another job where drug
testing isn't required.

That could be seriously inconvenient for people with something to hide. For
the rest of us, it's a minor inconvenience akin to providing a thumbprint
at a bank.

Public school teachers, and their unions, generally abhor drug testing. So
far, most Idaho schools have played along -- exempting teachers while
testing students who go out for sports or other extracurricular activities.
The hypocrisy of this is astounding.

CSI is right to pursue a new drug-testing policy. But it would be wrong to
omit random and pre-employment testing, both of which are staple fare in
the world that most wage earners inhabit.