Job Applicants Greeted with Increased Use of Drug Screening

Eager to join the war on drugs and secure a more efficient workplace, half of San Diego’s largest employers have begun testing job applicants to determine whether they use illegal drugs.

In the last year, 10 of the top 20 employers in San Diego County have included a drug test in the application process, and several of the 10 are considering drug tests for current employees.

Thousands of applicants have been screened and dozens have been turned down because they tested positive for drugs. While companies are spending thousands of dollars on the tests, civil-liberties and union activists are attentively watching the practice, hoping the trend doesn’t go too far.

The most common test is a urine analysis of an employee who is returning from leave, or of an applicant as part of a pre-employment physical exam. Urine samples are tested at a medical lab for traces of cocaine, marijuana and other illegal drugs. Cocaine can be detected anywhere from 10 days after use; marijuana for up to a month.

Out front on drug testing are San Diego’s high-tech manufacturing giants: General Dynamics, Rohr Industries, National Steel & Shipbuilding Co. (Nassco), Solar Turbines Inc. and Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical.

Officials from these and other companies believe the testing eliminates applicants who not only harm themselves with a drug habit, but also pose a safety threat to co-workers and are likely to produce sloppy work that would harm the company’s reputation.

“Any company that knows what’s going on in Southern California--perhaps especially in Southern California--is aware that there are drugs in the environment and in the workplace,” said George Weida, vice president for human resources for San Diego Gas & Electric, which began testing its applicants in April.

Weida said that, with his employees scaling power rigs and running generators for thousands of customers, drug testing is a necessary safety precaution.

Val DeWitt, communications manager for Solar Turbines, which began testing in July, said top management of the firm is committed to screening for drugs.

“We have to make sure our employees are doing their job to the best of their ability,” she said. “Once drug use can affect a company’s product, it is no longer a personal issue.”

In isolated instances, drug testing is not new for some San Diego companies, such as General Dynamics, Rohr and Kaiser Permanente health services. They have used “probable cause” tests for employees when one appears glassy-eyed or woozy, is habitually late or has been involved in an on-the-job accident.

At Nassco, a more aggressive test of current employees is used. The company has periodically called in drug-sniffing dogs to check for drugs, either on employees or stashed in offices or at the shipyard. Since June, the dogs have found drugs several times, but never on employees.

One of the first employers to set up drug screening for those applying for jobs was the City of San Diego, which last September began testing applicants for safety-related positions--police officer, lifeguard, firefighter, sanitation worker and heavy-equipment operator.

Although only about 10 of the 400 applicants since then have tested positive for drugs--and those 10 have been eliminated from the applicant pool for at least three years--city officials say the screening has served its purpose and might be expanded to include employees.

“Our success is that we have properly identified a significant number of drug users that would previously have been undetected,” said Rich Snapper, city director of personnel. “Some people call it progressive, some people call it oppressive, but it seems to be working and we have some critical jobs we have to fill.”

Private employers report similar results, with 5% to 10% of their job applicants testing positive for drugs. And officials are relieved to eliminate even that few, company spokesmen say.

“If we can get drug users to walk away right off the bat, that’s fine with us,” said Bob Gresham, human resources manager for Teledyne Ryan. “It saves us a lot of time and money.”

That feeling has prompted many companies to think about using systematic--not isolated--drug testing of their current employees. SDG&E;, for example, is considering testing employees who are vying for positions with safety responsibilities or top executive posts that require meeting people outside of the company.

That kind of discussion, however, alarms Greg Marshall, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in San Diego. Marshall says inquiries to the ACLU about the propriety of drug testing have ballooned from none a year ago to several a week now; the inquiries constitute 10% of all calls to the ACLU.

“As far as we’re concerned, that’s a negative and very worrisome element,” Marshall said.

He said mandatory or random testing of employees without probable cause--an option most companies have rejected--is an invasion of privacy because it presumes that a person is guilty until proven innocent of drug use.

Even pre-employment drug screens constitute searches without probable cause, he said.

“Pre-employment is less objectionable but, by the same degree, it is less useful,” Marshall said. “It would be no trick for someone to go through the test, stay off stuff for a while, and then continue the habit while employed.”

Marshall says he’s worried that the tests are not accurate enough to protect employees from false charges of drug use. And even if they are highly accurate, he says, testing the casual drug user who performs well at work simply is not a company’s business and is not grounds for dismissal.

Union leaders are also wary of the new wave of testing, but they have no control over drug screens given to those who are seeking jobs. Several union leaders were quick to point out that questions about testing methods do not constitute a defense of drug use.

“I don’t like drugs, I’m down on them,” said Leo Landerway, secretary-treasurer for Teamsters Local 542. “But along with that I think everyone has a certain right to privacy. I’m pro and con on the matter. . . . There are a lot of gray areas.”

Vicki Powers, business representative for International Assn. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 1125, said drug testing is controversial among union members. She said many of the 5,000 General Dynamics workers her local represents are anxious about drug testing, which has taken on the appearance of a weapon in a moral crusade.

“I kind of think this is coming down from Reagan to the corporations,” she said, referring to President Reagan’s get-tough talk about drug use. In early August, Reagan called for his senior staff members to undergo voluntary drug testing as an example to private industry.

“What’s the next step?” she said. “Will we be tested for AIDS or venereal disease or other aspects previously handled at home? People are asking: ‘How far can they go?’ ”

While many of San Diego’s major employers are plowing new ground with the testing, other companies say they are hanging back to see if the pre-employment testing is worth the effort and whether the screening will be upheld in the courts.

Some believe their employee assistance programs, educational campaigns and counseling are enough to handle any drug problem, aligning them with the ACLU in advocating self-policing alternatives to drug testing.

Other employers fear stiff union opposition. For instance, the San Diego Unified School District will ask its students to submit to a voluntary drug testing program early next year, but it won’t ask its employees to do the same thing because they are unionized.

“It would be such a big issue with the employee unions, and since we have no evidence of a problem, I think it would be premature to look at it at this point,” said George Russell, director of personnel for the schools.

Some employers also are shying away from the cost of drug screening. A reliable test and follow-up can cost anywhere from $20 to $100, and with employers handling hundreds of applications a year, that’s often too expensive, they said. Teledyne Ryan, for example, spends about $4,000 a month on drug testing, a spokesman said.

“If we were to find that there were definite (drug) problems connected with the job, we would move quite rapidly,” said County Supervisor Paul Eckert. “The thing is, should you be spending money for that? . . . The county would be spending a lot of money unnecessarily.”

Other companies insist that illegal drugs are not a problem for their employees.

“We just have not, in all the years we have been in San Diego--and that’s more than 35 years--had a serious problem, and it has never come up as having hindered productivity,” said Jerry Ringer, assistant to the president of Cubic Corp. “If there were a problem in a company that does the kind of work that Cubic does, it would stand out.”

Dennis Richter, vice president of marketing and communications for Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation, insists that his company doesn’t share the drug problems that plague other companies.

“When you get into a community of doctors, a hospital staff where the people see each other every day, those people have an awareness of the effect of any kind of drugs or medicines on the central nervous system that the general public doesn’t have,” he said.

Yet Palomar Pomerado Hospital District began in August to take urine samples from prospective employees--incluVding janitors, medical technicians, nurses and administrators. Doctors, however, are not tested because they are not direct employees of the hospital.

“Drug abuse is a national epidemic and we are well aware of it,” said Mel Knoepp, Palomar Pomerado’s senior vice president of marketing. “We recognize, as many people are recognizing, that it’s a problem.

“Everyone is doing their share and rolling up their trousers,” Knoepp said. “I think it’s a trend of the times.”

SAN DIEGO EMPLOYERS’ DRUG TESTING

NO. OF SAN DIEGO TYPE OF DATE COMPANY EMPLOYEES TEST STARTED General Dynamics 19,000 Pre-employment & Oct. 1985 Probable cause (b) County of San Diego 13,300 none --- San Diego Unified School District 11,200 none --- City of San Diego 8,100 Pre-employment & Probable cause (a-b) Sept. 1985 SD Community College District 5,800 none --- Pacific Bell 5,600 none --- Rohr Industries Inc. 5,000 Pre-employment & Probable cause (b) Feb. 1986 SD Gas & Electric 4,800 Pre-employment April 1986 Cubic Corp. 4,400 none --- NASSCO 3,800 Pre-employment & July 1986 Dog sniffing (c) PSA 3,200 Pre-employment Oct. 1985 Kaiser Permanente 3,000 Probable cause (b) 1980 (a) Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation 2,800 none --- Home Federal Saving and Loan Assn. 2,700 none --- Solar Turbines Inc. 2,400 Pre-employment July 1986 Bank of America 2,400 none --- Grossmont Hospital 2,300 none --- Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical 2,200 Pre-employment Jan. 1986 California First Bank 2,000 none --- Palomar Pomerado Hospital District 2,000 Pre-employment Aug. 1986

NUMBER COMPANY TESTED General Dynamics 1,800 County of San Diego --- San Diego Unified School District --- City of San Diego 400 SD Community College District --- Pacific Bell --- Rohr Industries Inc. 1,000 SD Gas & Electric 275 Cubic Corp. --- NASSCO 50 PSA 2,000 Kaiser Permanente NA Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation --- Home Federal Saving and Loan Assn. --- Solar Turbines Inc. NA Bank of America --- Grossmont Hospital --- Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical 1,100 California First Bank --- Palomar Pomerado Hospital District 60

a: Kaiser’s policy was put in writing in 1980 but it conducted probable cause tests for several years before that.

b: The city tests only those employees who are directly responsible for other people’s safety (police officers, firefighters, lifeguards, heavy equipment operators, garbage collectors).

c: -Tests are conducted when an employee exhibits behavior consistent with drug-use symptoms (forgetfulness, mood swings, frequent lateness, glassy eyes) or has been in an on-the-job accident.

d: Periodic unannounced searches for illegal drugs are conducted of work areas and administration buildings with specially trained dogs.