County Plans Anonymous Drug Tests of Applicants

Some county job applicants later this year will be asked to undergo drug and alcohol testing to help determine the extent of substance abuse among the county’s employees, the Board of Supervisors decided Tuesday.

The testing will be done anonymously and voluntarily over a three-month period, county employee relations specialist Linda Robinson said.

She said that “no one’s name will be put on it (a blood or urine specimen)” and that the employment chances of applicants who decline to be tested will not be prejudiced “one bit.”

Up to 300 people are expected to participate in the program, the details and starting date of which remain to be worked out, Robinson said. The results of the survey could help the county decide if more widespread testing of job applicants and current employees is necessary, she said.

In approving the blind testing program, the board also adopted other recommendations of a drug and alcohol task force established last year and headed by Robinson. Those recommendations include delaying testing of current county employees and job applicants, while monitoring court decisions, and developing specific testing procedures. They also include instituting an education program on drug and alcohol abuse for employees.

‘A Little Disappointed’

The board voted 4 to 0--Supervisor Thomas F. Riley was absent because of surgery--to adopt the task force’s report, although Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder, who proposed forming the task force in November, said she wished the report had been more assertive in stating that there is a drug problem among the county work force and by “possibly” recommending some type of drug testing for employees.

“I’m a little disappointed when I read it,” Wieder said. “I probably would have taken a hard line.”

Wieder said she was surprised by the report’s statement that “no immediate conclusions can be drawn” regarding the extent of drug or alcohol abuse among county employees.

“I think the statistics are pretty substantive,” said Wieder, citing a National Institute on Drug Abuse study that estimated between 10% and 23% of all workers abuse drugs on the job. “I’m inclined to feel that Orange County is not an island unto itself and is not unaffected by this nationwide problem.”

Wieder said, however, that she supports the general findings of the task force and understands that the county “must leave no stone unturned” in preserving workers’ constitutional rights.

Unions in Opposition

Robinson said the task force, which included representatives of four county agencies and nine employee organizations, was unable to reach a consensus on drug testing.

No task force member supported random testing of employees, but a majority of the members said they could support testing of job applicants and of employees who are suspected of using drugs on the job, provided that legal and technical questions surrounding the issue can be cleared up, Robinson said.

The county counsel’s office said such testing is probably legal if the employee is in a job that could affect public safety, but it would still be subject to court challenges, Robinson said.

Two employee organizations--the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the Service Employees International Union--said they are opposed to drug testing under any conditions, Robinson said.

“The unions didn’t want to bargain away their members’ constitutional rights,” she said.

Supervisors Gaddi H. Vasquez and Don R. Roth expressed concerns that employees’ rights and interests be protected in developing any kind of drug-testing program.

“The county has got to be prepared to assume the responsibility of the aftermath of the consequences of detection,” Vasquez said. “My commitment is to the employees. . . . They have to be assisted in good faith.”