S.F. Votes to Ban Random Drug Tests in Workplace

Responding to the increased use of random drug tests in the workplace, the Board of Supervisors on Monday outlawed such tests at private companies here unless there are “reasonable grounds” to suggest that an employee is a danger to others.

The ordinance, believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, does not prevent employers from testing job applicants for drug use. But it forbids the testing of regular employees unless they both appear to be impaired and pose a health or safety threat.

Supervisor Bill Maher, sponsor of the measure, said it also would apply to professional sports teams.

The board passed the measure 8 to 1, with two members absent. Mayor Dianne Feinstein now has 10 days to decide whether to sign it into law.

In addition to banning random blood, urine and encephalographic tests, the measure forbids companies from interfering in workers’ personal relationships. Maher added this clause to his bill after learning of a woman who was fired for becoming romantically attached to someone employed by a rival company.

He said he wrote the bill after learning of large drug-testing programs at several San Francisco firms. At one, Maher said, 800 employees were ordered to submit urine samples or face immediate dismissal. A pregnant woman refused and was fired, he said.

“You don’t treat people like this--it’s crazy,” Maher said. “There is a presumption that everyone is guilty until proved innocent.”

He added that while the test ban was aimed at drug screenings, it will help to assure worker privacy in a number of other areas as well.

“It’s no one’s business if you’re pregnant or diabetic or using a doctor’s prescription for antidepressive medication,” he said. “Employers should not be in a position to say, ‘She’s pregnant, so we won’t bother promoting her.’ ”

Supervisor Quentin Kopp, the lone opponent of the proposal, called the bill “hypocritical” because it exempts police officers, firefighters and certain other city employees. He also called the ordinance “disgraceful” because he said it appears to condone drug abuse.

“At a time when the role of government ought to be to discourage drug use, this sends a message in the other direction,” he said.

Kopp asserted that the requirement that workers pose a health or safety threat before they can be tested will exempt most employees from the test, even if they should appear to be drug-impaired.

“Think of how many people are in a position to affect the health and safety of others--lawyers aren’t, salesmen aren’t, clerks aren’t, most office workers aren’t,” he said. “Under the law, 90% of the work force here in San Francisco could not be tested. It’s a shuck, a sham.”

Maher agreed that such employees are exempt from drug testing. But he added that employers still are able to discipline or fire workers if they are obviously unable to do their jobs properly. He said employers are simply prohibited from using urine or blood tests to confirm that drugs caused the problem.

Maher is the brother of John Maher, a recovered drug addict who founded and runs the Delancey Street Foundation, a highly regarded drug-rehabilitation program here.

Random testing of employees for drug use has become increasingly popular as employers throughout the country seek to recover lost productivity attributed to drug use.

Marijuana, Cocaine

Laboratories engaged in mass drug screening estimate that drug use has been found among 12% to 20% of the job applicants tested. Most job-seekers who fail such tests are identified as having used marijuana. Cocaine is the second most common drug identified.

Marnie Verbofsky, president of a Los Angeles drug-testing laboratory, told The Times earlier this year that “if you’re a company with 20% of your people working at reduced productivity, you have a real problem.”

Opponents of the tests, however, note that it is not uncommon for the tests to record “false positives”--that is, to detect a trace of, perhaps, herbal tea and identify it as marijuana.

In other cases, people who have not used drugs have been wrongly red-flagged by tests because they had been in the same room as someone using marijuana.

Proponents of the tests contend that backup tests avoid such problems.