Pubdate: Fri, 29 Apr 2005
Source: Southeast Missourian (MO)
Copyright: 2005 Southeast Missourian
Contact:  http://www.semissourian.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1322
Author: John Mitchell
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Test)

CONTRACTOR DRUG TESTING AND UNDERAGED DRINKING - WHERE'S THE LINK?

This past Monday the Missouri Senate passed Senate Bill 402, a bill
identified on the official Senate Web site as: "SB 402 -- Creates and
modifies provisions relating to underage drinking."

It sounds like a good idea, but it is much more. And in it are many
troublesome surprises.

In one of these surprises, President Pro Tem Michael Gibbons,
R-Kirkwood, stealthily has taken direct aim at the construction
industry throughout Missouri. The specific section that should chill
construction contractors and property owners near any school is
Section 160.782.

The official Senate Web site states: "SECTION 160.782 -- REQUIRES DRUG
TESTING FOR CONTRACTOR AND EMPLOYEES WORKING AT OR NEAR A SCHOOL 1.
Any person who provides construction services under contract within
two thousand feet of a public or private elementary or secondary
school, public vocational school, or public or private junior college,
college, or university or any land grant university shall submit to a
chemical test for the purpose of determining the drug content of that
person's blood prior to working in such area. The provision of this
subsection shall not apply to any person who has submitted to a
chemical test for the employer within six months of commencement of
the construction and the results of such test were negative."

What does all this have to do with underage drinking? Absolutely
nothing.

This section goes on to say who can give what type of test, what is
considered a positive or negative test and even what an employer must
do if an employee fails a test;.

But what it does not say is extraordinary. SB 402 does not say who to
submit to for the test, who is responsible for ordering or enforcing
the results of these tests or regulating the test costs or who pays
for all these tests.

Just exactly how are contractors going to know if a project is 1,997
or 2,001 feet from a school?

Will bold red circles be drawn on the ground at the 2,000-foot mark?
Will the 2,000-foot distance be measured by a string-straight line or
over the surface of the bumpy ground?

Will a property owner be responsible for drug testing every plumber,
builder, painter, roofer, gutter man, city water department employee,
telephone lineman, gas company pipe layer and cable TV man works on
his property?

Does a self-contractor/property owner have to have a drug test
performed on himself before construction begins?

If a building contractor is responsible for all these drug tests,
every construction project's costs are going to increase significantly
because of lost man-hours and test prices.

How many construction delays will be caused by missed or expired
tests?

Why are construction workers being assumed guilty of drug usage until
they pay to prove themselves innocent?

What about the subcontractors for all these contractors? What if the
subcontractors lie about employee test results?

What a complete red-tape boondoggle this section will become if
passed.

Contractors and property owners have a way to stop this. SB 402 and
Section 160.782 still has to get through the Crime Prevention and
Public Safety Committee and to pass the full House of Representatives.
Every property owner within one-third mile of a school and every
construction contractor should contact their state representatives
about the removal of this section. They should contact the governor's
office to urge the outright defeat of this bill if it passes the House
as it is now.

Should Section 160.782 become law, yet another expensive bureaucratic
red-tape machine will be imbedded in our businesses. The best
opportunity to kill this red-tape monster is to stop it before it starts.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek