DRUG TESTING IN IOWA: DOES IT UNFAIRLY TARGET EMPLOYEES?

"Reasonable Suspicion" Grounds For Random Alcohol & Drug Testing; Civic
Employees Exempt From Law; Few Protection Measures For Employees

Employers in Iowa now have much more power when it comes to testing their
employees and applicants for alcohol or drug use, due to the signing of
House Bill 299 by legislators, earlier this month.

The bill expands the right of private companies to randomly test sample
groups of employees for drugs or alcohol, as well as administer tests to
individual employees, based on the employer's "reasonable suspicion."
Refusal or failure of any test is grounds for suspension or dismissal,
depending on the employers policies.

The bill allows employers to test for drugs or alcohol (only urine tests
can be administered, no blood tests) of specific employees who are
noticeably impaired while on duty, who exhibit abnormal or erratic
behavior, or who are directly observed using, or based on a report of
alcohol or drug use provided by a reliable source.

The bill is a result of heavy lobbying by the association of business and
industry in Iowa, according to Iowa Senator Maggie Tinsman. She said,
"Most of the larger companies in Iowa were interested in this, Alcoa,
Maytag, John Deere. Their main concern appears to be safety in the
workplace."

Jobs requiring the use of heavy machinery and the operation of large
vehicles will be the main targets of employers drug testing. Alcoa
representative Mario Dalla-Vicenza said, "if you have people handling
cranes, having yourself impaired with either drugs or alcohol is
unacceptable. Safety, and impairment at the workplace is what the issue is
really all about." Dalla-Vicenza said that drug testing has been a policy
at Alcoa for quite some time, and that they test prospective employees,
employees that are visibly impaired and employees involved in accidents at
the workplace.

Bill Doesn't Go Far Enough

Opponents of the bill come from both sides of the coin. While some may feel
the bill gives too much power to employers, Iowa Senator Tom Vilsack feels
it doesn't go far enough. Vilsack voted against the bill because it
pertains only to private companies and doesn't include public employees.
"Public employees that work with machinery and equipment, like garbage
trucks and snow plows, should also be tested. They are not only putting
themselves in danger, but their co-workers, and the public as well," he said.

Most opponents of the bill say that drug testing infringes on an employees'
right to privacy and in violation of the 4th Amendment, which protects
citizens from unreasonable search and seizure, as well as
self-incrimination. Iowa Senator Michael Gronstal said, "I think there are
real concerns about the balance between employers' rights and employees'
rights. We are giving employers more power than we give to police to
enforce drug laws."

An employee from a local accounting firm, who wished to remain anonymous
said, "I think this gives way too much power to employers. First of all,
they are going to use this as a scare tactic against employees. It could
be targeted at employees that question corporate actions or rally support
against the company. If people are doing drugs or drinking at work, that's
a problem, but what people do in their free time is nobody's business. I
think they are just worried about insurance claims."

Some health costs could befall companies because of this bill. If an
employee tests positive for alcohol, and the employer keeps them as an
employee, the employer is required to pay for substance abuse treatment for
that individual. The treatment would be covered under the company's health
plan. But if an employee tests positive for drugs, the employer is not
required to pay for treatment.

Vern Carlson, a drug abuse counselor at Riverside, disagreed with this
disparity, "Casual users are smart enough not to do it at work. With
people who are addicted, though, it is frequent. Firing them isn't
helpful. If an abuser gets fired, he will not likely seek any help and
then turn to other activities to supply his habit. Many people who get
treatment turn out to be some of the best employees."

Certain Employees Excluded

The bill gives employers the right to randomly test a section of the
employees, unannounced. According to the bill, the section of employees
must be selected by a computer-based random number generator and conducted
by an entity independent from the employer. Vilsack feels there are
problems with this as well, "The way the law is set up, there are certain
groups of employees that will be excluded from the random sampling group
and never be exposed to that test." He is referring to the portion of the
law that states drug testing will include all employees, "... other than
those whose duties include administration of the drug testing program,
those without individualized suspicion ... and those who are not scheduled
for work at the time of testing because of the status of the employees."
Employees who are under suspicion can be subjected to random drug testing
at any time during the workday without any advance warning.

If an employee refuses a test, they are almost certainly going to be fired,
depending on the employer. The employee can go to court and try to
disprove any "reasonable suspicion." According to the bill, if an employee
fails the test, a second test can be administered, but the cost for that
test would fall upon the employee. The employee can be placed on unpaid
suspension pending the results of the second test. Other than that, there
are no other protection measures for the employees.

Checked-by: Richard Lake