Pubdate: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 Source: Ventura County Star (CA) Copyright: 2000, Ventura County Star Contact: http://www.staronline.com/ Author: Jake Finch PANEL DISCUSSES WHETHER DRUG TESTS INFRINGE ON PRIVACY Five members debate ethics, value, cost, motive for testing employees for narcotics. At what point in drug testing does a sound business decision become an unreasonable invasion of privacy at work? As could be expected, the answer to the question asked by journalist and moderator Sander Vanocur varied greatly among Thursday's five-member panel on "Combating Substance Abuse: Whose Business Is It?" held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley. Nadine Strossen, law professor and president of the American Civil Liberties Union, drew a clear distinction between recreational drug use and substance abuse, saying the recreational user's job performance may not be affected. "I support, and the ACLU supports, the kind of testing that NASAand the Federal Aviation Administration use, which determines what your response time is and what is your hand-eye coordination," said Strossen, stressing that if job performance is not an issue, then employees are entitled to their privacy. She also questioned the value of widespread drug testing, saying it is not a deterrent for drug use and is excessively expensive for businesses to conduct. "From the perspective of business, is this the most cost effective way? The answer is 'no'," she said. Talk between Strossen and Thomas Donohue, president and chief executive officer of the United States Chamber of Commerce, heated up when Donohue defended drug testing, saying the privacy is violated when the information obtained through the testing is used for reasons other than assuring the safety and well-being of employees and customers. "I just think it's a smart thing to do if you care about your employees, customers and business," he said, adding that drug testing itself is a deterrent. "Most of the benefit is not that you do the test but that you're going to do the test," he said. Robert Tobias, a professor at the American University School of Public Affairs, said that as of today, 49 percent of working Americans between the ages of 18 and 44 have been tested for drugs. He attributes the origins of drug testing to a 1986 report issued by President Reagan's Commission on Organized Crime, which, he said, reported that drug trafficking was the most serious crime of the day. Reagan's response to the report was a presidential mandate requiring the drug testing of 1.1 million federal employees, Tobias said. This, in turn, led to the private sector's concerns. "It's now time, I suggest, for individual employers to make an individual analysis on whether the cost of drug testing makes sense," he said. Raymond C. Kubacki Jr., president and CEO of Psychemedics Corporation, which developed a drug test using hair analysis, strongly disagreed with Tobias' premise. He said corporations don't spend the kind of money used for drug testing without first determining a need for it. "We have a right and a responsibility to address (drug use) because most people don't want to work in place with drugs," he said. Former head of Primerica Financial Services Joseph J. Plumeri II said that in his experience, some industries, such as brokerage houses, were too lenient in their drug testing policy, while others, such as the banking industry, were correct to test employees who were handling millions of dollars of client money. "For my own point of view, that unevenness has to be cured," he said. All agreed that substance abuse, whether by alcohol, illegal drugs or even tobacco, were legitimate issues for employers to take action on. And for those employees who do abuse drugs, drug testing, followed by counseling through employee assistance programs or insurance coverage, is the best road to a solution. "We're talking about helping people in stressful times become more effective (through detection)," Donohue said. - --- MAP posted-by: Derek Rea