COMPANIES USING TESTS TO TRY TO ERADICATE DRUG USE AMONG EMPLOYEES

Effectiveness, Ethics Of Drug Sweep At Gm Plant Questioned

Associated Press

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- Mike Price's long career with General Motors ended
abruptly with a drug sweep of the company's Corvette plant in Bowling Green.

Price was arrested in the middle of a work shift, and was among 17 workers
led past their peers in handcuffs on the way to being charged with selling
marijuana to an undercover agent posing as a co-worker.

Price, a 46-year-old single parent, was fired after nearly 23 years with GM.

"Am I a trafficker in marijuana? No way," Price said. Like most of the GM
workers arrested on May 7, 1998, he maintains his innocence. "If GM thought
I had a drug problem, why didn't they come to me?"

In fact, GM had no random drug-testing program, only suspicions. So it used
the drug sweep, and thus joined an increasing number of companies willing
to try any means to stamp out drugs in the workplace.

Despite such efforts, which many view as Draconian, companies across
Kentucky and throughout the nation continue to be confounded by the grip
drugs have on their employees and the workplace, The Courier-Journal
reported Sunday.

For years, companies mostly dealt with alcoholism, which remains the No. 1
problem in the work force. But after years of fighting substance abuse, the
companies are now confronting the fact that drug use has shown no
significant decline. Even drug testing, which has been the workhorse of
drug-free workplaces for two decades, remains controversial and inconclusive.

The problem, of course, begins outside the workplace and cuts across
racial, socio-economic and industry lines.

In Greater Louisville, an estimated 70,000 people are addicted to a drug,
and less than 10 percent are treated. For reasons ranging from a lack of
programs to a lack of money, an estimated 22,000 people are waiting for
treatment of substance abuse.

And in the Louisville area alone, substance abuse kills 600 people every
year. The problem costs the area more than $630 million in health care,
unemployment, lost productivity, crime and criminal justice expenses and
addiction treatment, according to figures released at last year's
Louisville Drug & Alcohol Treatment Summit.

Price, who said of his firing that "my life is gone now," could attest to
the fact that no one is exempt from being a suspect.

GM will say little about its undercover operation and the subsequent arrests.

"Everyone deserves a workplace that's free of substance abuse," said Kyle
Johnson, GM's spokesman. "We want to make our workplace safe for all of our
employees."

But Price, who is now working a sales job, has gone public in an effort to
clear his name. He has rejected a plea deal that would fine him $50 for
possession.

He is still seemingly bewildered by the turn of events and says he never
sold drugs to the undercover agent from a private security company, a young
woman who befriended several co-workers during a 16-month period. GM
brought in the woman when the company began to suspect drug use at the plant.

The company says some workers sold her drugs, including marijuana and
amphetamines.

Attorney Kelly Thompson, who is representing eight of the 17 defendants in
a civil lawsuit filed against GM, said that most of the employees were
fired, one suffered a nervous breakdown and three with specialized skills
eventually returned to work at the plant. Many of the employees have
jointly filed lawsuits in federal court against GM and Aset Corp., the
undercover agent's employer, alleging, among other things, entrapment and
invasion of privacy.

"You could put all the drugs they found in one hand," Thompson said. The
undercover agent "enticed them to bring the drugs to work. The joint would
appear on her workbench, and she'd say, 'That's trafficking in marijuana."'

Given what Thompson called the small amount of drugs found, the number of
employees GM had to replace and what Thompson called the questionable
tactics of the undercover officer, he said sending employees to treatment
programs would have made more sense.

So, he said, would drug testing.

"They could have said to the union, 'We'd like to do drug testing.' Or,
'We'd like to do random testing.' Or, 'We'd like to pick out these people
we suspect and do drug testing,"' Thompson said.

Although their legality has been challenged in the courts, the U.S. Supreme
Court has consistently upheld the rights of companies to require drug
testing as a condition of employment.

Toyota's assembly plant in Georgetown has a long-established program of
drug testing for both new and current employees. Even smaller and mid-sized
businesses are now requiring job candidates to take drug tests as a
condition of employment.

Many critics question the accuracy of drug tests. Kent Holtorf, an Arizona
physician, cites in his book "Ur-Ine Trouble" studies from organizations
ranging from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to the National
Institute on Drug Abuse that point to the role of human error and faulty
equipment in producing drug-test results with false positives.

Despite worries about accuracy, advocates of the tests point to technology
that they say is more accurate than ever.

"There really isn't any such thing any more as a false positive," said
Brenda Blair, occupational health manager for United Parcel Service's
Louisville operations. "Back in the '70s and early '80s there were, but the
methodologies are so intricate now that you just don't hear of it."

Positive tests are now followed up with a more accurate and sophisticated
confirmation test. If both of those tests turn up positive, a medical
review officer -- a physician trained in pharmacological interactions --
interviews the employee and reviews the employee's background to see if an
innocent explanation is behind the positive test result.