San Diego Planning Employee Drug Tests : New and Current Workers Would Be Subject to Screening

In an effort to halt on-the-job drug abuse, the city’s personnel director is planning to test all prospective city employees to see if they are using illegal drugs.

In addition, Personnel Director Rich Snapper has quietly set up strict new procedures that allow current employees who are suspected of on-the-job drug use to be referred immediately to Industrial Medical Center, the city’s medical provider, for testing.

If they refuse, they can be disciplined--even fired. And if the test is positive, they also can be fired, Snapper said in an interview.

No checks have been conducted so far, and most supervisors do not yet know that they now have the authority to refer an employee who appears to be “under the influence” for immediate testing.

Learned From Reporter

Leaders of city employee groups--who learned about the anti-drug campaign from a reporter--said they were surprised by the proposal, but would reserve judgment until they knew more about it.

“Everybody wants to make sure the city employees clean up their act if they are involved in drugs,” said Richard Hamilton, president of the Municipal Employees Assn., which represents 2,500 of the city’s 7,000 workers. “The concept sounds OK, but I don’t know how he intends to implement it.”

Snapper said Thursday that he soon will explain the campaign in detail. The new referral procedure for testing employees who appear intoxicated is already in effect, but Snapper said he needs Civil Service Commission approval before he can begin testing prospective city employees. Snapper said he plans to bring up the issue at the commission’s June 6 meeting and seek approval at its July 11 meeting.

Once the commission agrees, drug screening of applicants for city jobs will begin immediately, Snapper said.

Snapper said he has no statistics on how many city employees are abusing drugs but conceded that the number is not large. “The incidents are limited in number,” Snapper said. “But when one occurs, it can be severe in nature.”

Must Have a Reason

Snapper emphasized that if a supervisor orders an employee to be tested for drugs, the supervisor must have good reason to believe that the person has been using illegal drugs at work. Suspicions about drug use at home are not sufficient, he said. And he promised that the city will not undertake random drug screenings.

Such random screening would be illegal, according to a five-page opinion that Deputy City Atty. John M. Kaheny wrote at Snapper’s request, approving the other anti-drug measures in his plan.

The City of Los Angeles has been testing prospective police officers for drugs for the last six months in a pilot program.

Of the 300 candidates examined, only five or six tested positive, Los Angeles Personnel Director John Driscoll said. The city will probably continue using the test, he said, but is not likely to apply the test to other city employees. “The employer has a right to invade somebody’s privacy if it can be sufficiently shown that it’s a job-related reason,” he said, and testing police, firefighters, or even equipment operators is not unreasonable.

“We’re careful, we’re very careful how we handle this thing,” Driscoll said. But “I don’t see us trying to drug test 50,000 city employees--every clerk typist who walks through the door,” he said.