Pubdate: Wed, 24 Aug 2005
Source: Salem News (MA)
Copyright: 2005 Essex County Newspapers
Contact:  http://www.salemnews.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3466
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

DRUG TESTING FOR POLICE, FIREFIGHTERS SHOULDN'T BE NEGOTIABLE

It's time for state lawmakers to summon up the courage to take on the 
public safety unions and allow drug testing of those who serve in
local police  and fire departments.

While testing is often required of those applying for a public-safety
position, once hired such testing can only be conducted in accordance
with individual collective bargaining contracts. And as a story in
last Saturday's  Salem News pointed out, those policies can be all
over the map. The Salem Police Department, which has one of the
toughest such policies in the region, allows testing with probable
cause, and suspension or even discharge  could result if an officer
refuses to cooperate. The Beverly and Danvers fire  departments, on
the other hand, have no provisions for testing, even if drug use  is
suspected.

It's ludicrous that the state, which requires those carrying
commercial driver's licenses to take random drug tests, has no similar
standard for those who are routinely involved in situations that
require quick reflexes and a clear head. Danvers Fire Chief James
Tutko is an advocate of drug testing, "given the position we have,
given the fact that firefighters are driving heavy vehicles and
working with very sophisticated equipment," but he has been thwarted
in his efforts to get the necessary language in that town's contract
with the firefighters.

The fact is that this is not something that should be subject to the
kind of horse-trading that goes on at the bargaining table. These are
well-paid positions with generous benefits, for which there is usually
no shortage of applicants. Given the responsibilities involved, 
carrying a gun, making  arrests, carrying people from burning
buildings, responding to motor vehicle  accidents, there's no
reason anyone in either of these professions who's  suspected of drug
use shouldn't be tested. And there's no reason those who have  tested
positive once, after receiving appropriate discipline and treatment, 
shouldn't be subject to random testing in the future.

Yet the patchwork of policies has resulted in situations as ludicrous
as the one in Peabody where a firefighter who tested positive for drug
use now stands  to have his suspension reversed because of the city's
failure to advise him in  advance that the test would be conducted
using a hair follicle rather than a  urine sample.

Bay State lawmakers have been notoriously reluctant to take on the
police and firefighters unions. It's one of the reasons, for example,
that this state stands virtually alone in requiring uniformed officers 
paid at a healthy overtime rate to direct traffic at every
road construction site. In this case, however, the Legislature ought
to put the interest of the general public ahead of that of its friends
in the public safety  ranks.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin