ASKING JOB APPLICANTS TO PROVE INNOCENCE PUTS CITY'S TRUST TO THE TEST

The ACLU appreciates the Post-Intelligencer editorial's comment that
". . . we often share the moral high ground with the American Civil
Liberties Union."

But we are disappointed that the P-I does not share our objection to
requiring prospective city employees to "prove their innocence" by
submitting to a urine test -- even when the city has not a shred of
evidence that the applicant is using drugs.

The ACLU is pursuing a lawsuit challenging the city's urine-testing
program as an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The city degrades its
future employees by treating them as suspects when there is no reason
to presume they are abusing drugs. To be sure, the ACLU agrees that
the city should not tolerate job performance hampered by drug use.
However, less intrusive, more effective means are available to do that.

The Seattle City Council in 1996 adopted a program of blanket testing
for new hires with virtually no public discussion. Since the ACLU
filed its lawsuit in 1997, the council twice has retreated from its
support for suspicionless urine testing, both times reducing the scope
of job positions to be tested. The city should try one more time to
get it right by limiting its testing program to positions required by
federal law. The ACLU's lawsuit does not challenge the testing of
police, fire fighters and those with commercial driver's licenses.

Americans have the right to expect that government will respect their
privacy unless there is very good cause to intrude. This principle is
part of the U.S. Constitution, which bars the government, including
city governments, from unreasonable searches of individuals. As a
result, the Supreme Court has limited suspicionless drug testing of
government workers to situations that present a serious threat to
national security or public safety. And Washington citizens are
fortunate to have a state Constitution that provides even stronger
protections for privacy than does the federal Constitution.

The city of Seattle tests many individuals for reasons much less
compelling than the standards set forth by the Supreme Court. The
city's program is not clearly limited to "safety-sensitive" positions.
Its job categories have been so broadly defined to require urine
testing for prospective computer operators, meter readers, ushers and
administrative support personnel.

The city and the P-I use two dubious examples to make a case to
support urine testing. First, they claim that the urine-testing
program significantly reduced accidents in the Seattle Conservation
Corps. That program is designed to train and employ "at-risk"
individuals, many with substance abuse problems. The Conservation
Corps, which uses urine testing as part of enrollees' rehabilitation
program, is hardly representative of city employees as a whole. The
ACLU does not object to their testing.

The editorial repeats a claim that urine testing reduced sick leave by
employees with commercial driver's licenses, who are tested because of
a federal mandate. Interestingly enough, the city's own statistics
question that assertion.

In 1996, sick-leave use by city employees in that group who tested
positive for drugs was actually 20 percent lower than those who tested
negative.

National studies do not present a clear picture. The city cites one
that purports to show cost savings from urine-testing programs.
However, a report by the well-respected National Academy of Sciences
concluded there was insufficient evidence to show that worker urine
testing deters drug use, increases productivity or improves workplace
safety.

The city should not tolerate job performance hindered by drug use.
City officials should focus on how people actually perform on the job,
not on what substances may be in people's urine. Before hiring, the
city can conduct thorough background checks to determine whether
applicants have performed solidly in previous jobs. After hiring, they
can evaluate employees' day-to-day performance at work. And they can
use non-intrusive "performance-testing" devices that measure whether a
worker is able to do basic tasks on a given workday. The
computer-based devices catch impairment due not only to drugs, but
also to alcohol, fatigue and stress.

The city should treat its workers with basic human dignity. As
conservative New York Times columnist William Safire put it: "What
goes on in my home and body and mind is my business. Unless I give you
probable cause to suspect me of a crime, and a court will give you a
warrant for a search, you have no business sifting through my brain
waves and body fluids or looking under my bed."