U.S. CONSIDERS DRUG SCREENINGS THAT TEST SWEAT, SALIVA AND HAIR

Many workers may no longer need a cup to demonstrate to employers that
they aren't using illegal drugs.

Last week, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, announced the proposal of a new rule that would allow
federal agencies to use sweat, saliva and hair in federal drug-testing
programs that now test only urine.

A final plan on the new procedures could be issued by the end of the
year for 1.6 million federal workers. About 400,000 federal workers
who have security clearances, carry firearms, deal with public safety
or national security or are presidential appointees are tested for
drugs when they apply for jobs; other federal employees are tested if
they show signs of drug use or are involved in a work-related accident.

Experts say there is a very good chance that many companies besides
defense contractors and transportation concerns could follow suit if
the new procedures go into effect. Many big companies, such as Home
Depot Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., have extensive drug-testing
programs and test thousands of workers each year. Most companies say
it is too soon to say just how their own testing programs might change.

The American Management Association found that 67% of big companies
tested employees or job applicants for illegal substances in 2001, the
last time it surveyed employers on the topic. Roughly 60% of companies
tested new hires. Tests typically screen for drugs such as marijuana,
cocaine, amphetamines, heroin and other opiates.

Many drug-testing companies are eager for the new business they expect
to get from the government as well as from corporations. "This opens
up a whole new arena for us," says Roger Dietch, chief executive of
Global Detection & Reporting Inc., New York. The company tests for the
presence of illegal drugs that are secreted by the skin. As a sign of
the wider trend in adopting new testing methods, Mr. Dietch says the
company will announce a deal to provide testing for a national
retailer this week.

Many employee and privacy-rights groups have expressed concern about
the proposed changes. "There's no benefit from this," says Lewis
Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, in Princeton,
N.J. Mr. Maltby says he receives complaints "every day" from people
who say they have failed a drug test but have never done drugs. "It is
just going to increase the number of people who are going to lose
their jobs who never did drugs," he says.

What can workers do about new procedures that may come their
way?

In most cases, workers have few legal options if they fail a drug
test, which can be cause for termination. If it can be shown that a
company carried out a drug-testing policy unfairly, by discriminating
against a certain group of workers, or if testing was part of a
retaliatory measure against an employee, then a lawsuit against a
company has a greater chance of success, according to Tim Willoughby,
an employment lawyer in St. Louis.

Yet, he says, "people who've tested dirty don't make attractive
plaintiffs. If you've been falsely accused, you've got to show me that
you're clean." A case is more credible if an employee who tests
negative for drugs in subsequent tests can also show that an employer
refused to let him or her retake a test while allowing others that
option, or if numerous other employees had similar problems with the
employer.

Mr. Maltby advises people to ask a prospective employer about its
drug-testing policy, especially before giving up a permanent position
at a current job. He also recommends asking if the laboratory used by
the company has been certified by the Department of Health and Human
Services. "You can say, 'I've read about false positives in drug
tests,' " he says. "In general, if you ask the question in an
appropriate manner, you shouldn't get a negative reaction."

If you know that your test results must be incorrect, ask to retake
the test. Mr. Willoughby even advises anxious workers to visit a
doctor and have a blood sample drawn to provide a backup test, which
can cost several hundred dollars. "That is such a wonderful insurance
policy," he says.

Workers should also be aware that the Americans with Disabilities Act
makes it illegal for an employer to test a prospective employee
without first making a conditional offer of employment. The ADA also
prohibits employers from discriminating against candidates on the
basis of past substance abuse. In general, employers aren't permitted
to inquire about a candidate's medical history until after a job offer
has been made.

Many people advise employees who have a drug problem to step forward
prior to testing. "Their options are always better if they reach out
for treatment on their own," says Kenneth Collins, a consultant in
Orinda, Calif., who works with companies on issues of mental health
and substance abuse in the workplace. "They can keep it confidential,
and they don't have to put their job at risk," he says.