The River Cities’ Reader
By Devin Hansen

rcreader@rcreader.com

http://www.rcreader.com/

DRUG TESTING IN IOWA: DOES IT UNFAIRLY TARGET EMPLOYEES?

"Reasonable Suspicion" Grounds For Random Alcohol & Drug Testing; Civic Employees Exempt From Law; Few Protection Measures For Employees

Employers in Iowa now have much more power when it comes to testing their employees and applicants for alcohol or drug use, due to the signing of House Bill 299 by legislators, earlier this month.

The bill expands the right of private companies to randomly test sample groups of employees for drugs or alcohol, as well as administer tests to individual employees, based on the employer’s "reasonable suspicion." Refusal or failure of any test is grounds for suspension or dismissal, depending on the employers policies.

The bill allows employers to test for drugs or alcohol (only urine tests can be administered, no blood tests) of specific employees who are noticeably impaired while on duty, who exhibit abnormal or erratic behavior, or who are directly observed using, or based on a report of alcohol or drug use provided by a reliable source.

The bill is a result of heavy lobbying by the association of business and industry in Iowa, according to Iowa Senator Maggie Tinsman. She said, "Most of the larger companies in Iowa were interested in this, Alcoa, Maytag, John Deere. Their main concern appears to be safety in the workplace."

Jobs requiring the use of heavy machinery and the operation of large vehicles will be the main targets of employers drug testing. Alcoa representative Mario Dalla-Vicenza said, "if you have people handling cranes, having yourself impaired with either drugs or alcohol is unacceptable. Safety, and impairment at the workplace is what the issue is really all about." Dalla-Vicenza said that drug testing has been a policy at Alcoa for quite some time, and that they test prospective employees, employees that are visibly impaired and employees involved in accidents at the workplace.

Bill Doesn’t Go Far Enough

Opponents of the bill come from both sides of the coin. While some may feel the bill gives too much power to employers, Iowa Senator Tom Vilsack feels it doesn’t go far enough. Vilsack voted against the bill because it pertains only to private companies and doesn’t include public employees. "Public employees that work with machinery and equipment, like garbage trucks and snow plows, should also be tested. They are not only putting themselves in danger, but their co-workers, and the public as well," he said.

Most opponents of the bill say that drug testing infringes on an employees’ right to privacy and in violation of the 4^th Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure, as well as self-incrimination. Iowa Senator Michael Gronstal said, "I think there are real concerns about the balance between employers’ rights and employees’ rights. We are giving employers more power than we give to police to enforce drug laws."

An employee from a local accounting firm, who wished to remain anonymous said, "I think this gives way too much power to employers. First of all, they are going to use this as a scare tactic against employees. It could be targeted at employees that question corporate actions or rally support against the company. If people are doing drugs or drinking at work, that’s a problem, but what people do in their free time is nobody’s business. I think they are just worried about insurance claims."

Some health costs could befall companies because of this bill. If an employee tests positive for alcohol, and the employer keeps them as an employee, the employer is required to pay for substance abuse treatment for that individual. The treatment would be covered under the company’s health plan. But if an employee tests positive for drugs, the employer is not required to pay for treatment.

Vern Carlson, a drug abuse counselor at Riverside, disagreed with this disparity, "Casual users are smart enough not to do it at work. With people who are addicted, though, it is frequent. Firing them isn’t helpful. If an abuser gets fired, he will not likely seek any help and then turn to other activities to supply his habit. Many people who get treatment turn out to be some of the best employees."

Certain Employees Excluded

The bill gives employers the right to randomly test a section of the employees, unannounced. According to the bill, the section of employees must be selected by a computer-based random number generator and conducted by an entity independent from the employer. Vilsack feels there are problems with this as well, "The way the law is set up, there are certain groups of employees that will be excluded from the random sampling group and never be exposed to that test." He is referring to the portion of the law that states drug testing will include all employees, "... other than those whose duties include administration of the drug testing program, those without individualized suspicion ... and those who are not scheduled for work at the time of testing because of the status of the employees." Employees who are under suspicion can be subjected to random drug testing at any time during the workday without any advance warning.