DRUG TESTING: GETTING BERMUDA'S EMPLOYEES AT RISK BACK ON TRACK

TESTING for illicit drugs is a relatively recent phenomenon in Bermuda.
Prior to 1984, when the alco-analyser was introduced, it simply didn't
happen.

Nineteen years later, as Bermuda works to deal with its drug problem, a
number of companies have turned to Benedict Associates in the hope of
getting employees at risk back on track and thereby reducing the severity of
the crisis.

ACCORDING to Vaughn Mosher, Benedict Associates' managing director, drug
screening for illicit drugs was first used on the island in 1996 to test
Bermuda's athletes. The impact, he said, was significant and the process was
taken into the workplace.

The policies have since developed into three initiatives: 'Drugs Don't Play
Here', 'Drugs Don't Work Here' and, for the United Bermuda Party - whose
politicians only recently underwent their first screening - 'Leadership By
Example'.

"Part of the definition of disease and addiction is a person who continues
with a certain kind of behaviour in spite of all the reasons not to, knowing
full well what the consequences are - the threat to their livelihood, their
domestic well-being, losing their families, their homes and their kids," he
said.

"That's the nature of addiction and the great power of craving. What I like
about (drug screening) is that it helps intervene at an earlier stage rather
than to allow the behaviour to continue for several more months or years to
the point where the person is hooked even more chronically.

"Intervening where there's a lighter level of addiction makes it easier to
come out at the other side. That's why, by many standards (drug screening)
is considered to be a form of prevention."

Although many companies establish drug-free workplaces with employees'
health in mind, the often greater lure is the positive effect the policy has
on production levels and staff morale.

"Many companies have become drug-free workplaces because of safety-sensitive
jobs - employees working with heavy machinery or dangerous machinery such as
machetes and that sort of thing," he said.

"But in some cases (it stemmed from a concern regarding employees) who make
very big financial decisions. In a bank, for example, a safety-sensitive
issue would not so much be (the damage to) one's physical health, but one's
decision-making process.

"The policy has been extremely successful (as an aid to) continued work
rather than continued turnover. People who use drugs are gone a lot; they
get fired; they're just not there. Somebody has to either take their load
on, or a subsititute has to be brought in for them. That has a negative
impact on the morale and job satisfaction of their co-workers who aren't
drug users.

"We've had a couple of programmes over the last few years where
decision-makers say that their turnover levels are right down because people
are there reliably pulling their own weight. That alone, some of them have
said, is worth the price they pay for having a drug-ree workplace.

"We have a couple of progressive-thinking employers who have (hired) people
even though they've screened positive for pre-employment. They've
acknowledged that the person lied about their drug use but said, 'We're
willing to take a risk with you, but we expect you to get join our Employee
Assistance Programme and get counselling. And we expect you, in a very short
period of time, to become drug-free. We'll ride with you if you say that
you'll clean up your act and come work here.' Not all are that progressive
but in this community, Butterfield and Vallis are exemplary."

Testing, Mr. Mosher said, usually arose from one of four possible situations
- - reasonable cause, pre-employment screening, random testing and post
treatment or target testing.

"The most common is testing for reasonable cause; when a supervisor suspects
that someone's observed behaviour might very well be drug-related. They
don't have stereotypical attributes. It's more drug-specific.

"For instance, if somebody were on ecstasy, they'd be sort of wide-eyed and
really wanting to connect with people. It'd be outrageous behaviour at 2, 3,
5 o'clock in the morning. But then it's gone the next day and the day after.

"It's hard at times to detect a moderate, but steady use of cocaine, because
that person is a top performer being driven by the drug. We all generally
know what the stereotypes are of marijuana and of alcohol.

"Heroin has yet again a different type of behaviour associated with it -
flu-like symptoms, sniffling, cramps and physical pain during withdrawal.
And then the person gets a hit and within a very short period of time,
functions perfectly normally.

"We work with supervisors and managers to let them know what kinds of signs
and symptoms are there to be seen. And they make a referral. That person
comes in, has a drug screen, and is either drug-free or not."

PRE-EMPLOYMENT testing, he added, has become a great aid to employers as
they field through potential workers. "It's becoming more and more common.
We've (detected) nearly double the rate as compared to (the users we've
discovered) in the workplace. It could be that they're not expecting it, and
it could also be that that's why they're looking for work; (the abuse is)
the reason they're out of work.

"The third form is random testing, where a percentage of (those involved
are) called up, at no notice, to come in and supply a urine sample. In
sports here, the percentage is ten per cent. It varies in the workplace.

"Say there are 200 employees, we have one company that will have 100 polls
in a year - an average of 50 per cent tested per year. It's working very,
very well. They've really made a commitment to having a drug-free workplace
and helping those who find themselves to be on drugs."

Target, or post-treatment testing, differs in that it serves as a form of
rehabilitation for the admitted drug user, according to Mr. Mosher.

"Once the person says, 'Yes, I do want to stay in this sport and play
domestically, yes, I do want to continue to work at this company, thanks for
giving me the opportunity to do so, I will go for counselling and expect to
stop using my drug of choice,' the counsellor - or in our case, the
administrator here - calls up independently of the counselling session and
tells them when to come in and give a sample.

"(The process is effective in that it combines) the counselling, to help
change the lifestyle, with monitoring of possible drug. It's helpful to the
counsellor as well. The person might be presenting themselves beautifully,
when in fact they're still using drugs." The testing process, which includes
everyone from the company president to the newest recruit, is a fairly
simple one, Mr. Mosher explained.

Once notified, employees are screened within 24 hours.

The person is required to inform the counsellor or administrator of the test
of any medications or products - including nutritional and herbal products -
that they have taken within the past ten days.

A urine sample of 75 millilitres - which must be produced into a receptacle
while being witnessed - is required.

Thirty millilitres of the urine, poured into a second receptacle, will be
tested if the first sample proves positive.

Regent strips may be used to check the pH and specific gravity of the first
sample to ensure that it is valid for analysis.

The first sample is then tested for illicit drugs.

If the first sample shows a positive presence, the second is tested and
questions are raised again as to any medications or products taken in the
last ten days.

A drug use control form is signed by the administrator and the person
tested, verifying that the sample collection procedure was properly carried
out.

Whether the on-site test is negative or positive, the person is told
immediately and (their employer) receives written confirmation of that fact.

That the tests be considered a valid measure by those taking and
administering them, is crucial, Mr. Mosher says. And, in spite of the hopes
of many drug users, there is no way to beat them.

"Two things have really blown it for validity elsewhere in the world and
here in the past. It's important to have someone witness as a urine sample
is supplied. Otherwise, it could be anybody's.

"It seems like a no-brainer and yet, a lot of places don't do that. A lot of
places elsewhere in the world will say, 'Here you go, come out with this
filled please.'

"And, in fact, we have found a few people who have tried to get somebody
else's urine from their receptacle into our receptacle.

"But we have mechanisms to safeguard (against invalid samples). We witness
the delivery and there's a heat mechanism (attached to the receptacle).

"There are some products on the market that promise they can help users to
beat the test. They're there on the Internet and a lot of people have spent
outrageous sums of money - $30, $35 - on them.

"Most of them do one of two things - they either wash the person right out
so it could be pure water (they're urinating), or camouflouge the drugs.
We've got a mechanism that enables us to screen for validity. If the sample
doesn't show a valid measure, we don't screen. We know we're not going to
find anything.

"We had one guy come in on four occasions. Each time he said, 'Well, I just
drink a lot of water'. And maybe he did. But a couple of weeks later, his
supervisor went and demanded he come with him immediately. He didn't have a
chance to use one of his tests and, of course, he tested positive.

"It's rare, but we do sometimes find false positives and false negatives.
What we do then is take the samples to the Government lab, which then either
confirms or does not confirm our initial findings.

"Our instruments are very, very sensitive. So much so, that we can pick up
traces of certain drugs which look to be positive when in fact (the
readings) are not high enough to be over the threshold to be called
positive.

"There are legal cutoffs. With marijuana, for instance, the cutoff is 50
nanograms for 100 millilitres. As some countries and jurisdictions have the
cutoff as 15 nanograms, our instrument picks up (drug presence even when the
reading is) under 50.

"But it's not unless it's over 50 that (we recognise a test) as positive. A
person can claim second-hand smoke and a number of other things when there
is only a trace, and we want to give people the benefit of the doubt."

FOR athletes, a first infraction can result in one year of ineligibility
with monitored successful rehabilitation, a second infraction brings three
years of ineligibility while a third infraction results in a lifetime ban
from sport. Obviously, the options are somewhat different when the workplace
is involved.

"There's a big difference between the cost of marijuana and the cost of
cocaine and heroin," Mr. Mosher added. "And sometimes, that's where the
feathers hit the fan first.

There's usually a financial, followed by a physical crisis.

"Often you will see a cocaine user who's still able to function; the person
may, in fact, be a top performer because of the cocaine. But then they get
to the point where, depending on the amount they use, their body isn't able
to (stand up to it.). "An employer can go for months saying, 'I think you
are using,' and have the employee say, 'No, I'm not. A drug screen cuts
right through that.

"When a company decides to become drug-free, they give those who are found
to be using drugs the opportunity to clean up. Some do, and stay, and that's
good. But there are others who opt to continue with their drug of choice,
and leave.

"If we factor in (those users detected through) pre-employment testing, the
results are even greater. Those who are using, (aren't hired) in the first
place or if they are, they're expected from the get-go to clean up knowing
that if they don't, they go.

"That's why employers love (testing). It immediately drops (the incidence
of) drug use from who knows what level to practically nothing. With our
athletes especially, we can see the trends.

"Nine per cent of our national squad was found to be not drug-free four
years ago; for the last two years it has been around one per cent; this year
it's under one per cent. The change is phenomenal. It's very, very good."

For more information on drug testing and its benefits in the workplace,
phone Benedict Associates at 295-2070.