Drug Tests for Some City Job Seekers Voted

The Los Angeles City Council, rejecting the arguments of union representatives and the American Civil Liberties Union, gave preliminary approval Wednesday to a policy that would require drug-use screening for prospective employees in “safety-sensitive” jobs.

On a 12-0 vote, the council ordered the city’s Personnel Department to develop a program that, in addition to pre-employment testing, would train supervisors to identify abusers of drugs and alcohol and provide counseling and rehabilitation for employees found to have such problems.

The decision came after a long debate in which critics said the policy would violate rights of privacy. Screening methods such as urinalysis have been shown to be faulty, and could unfairly prevent individuals who wrongly test positive from gaining employment, critics said.

The goal of the policy, Councilwoman Joy Picus said, is “not to punish, but to recognize there are individuals who need help.” The policy, she added, “balances the rights of the individual with the rights of society.”

Drug and alcohol abuse, Picus said, often result in absenteeism, loss of production and liability risks for the city.

Under present city policy, only prospective police officers undergo mandatory drug screening under a policy established by Chief Daryl F. Gates.

Ray Allen, assistant general manager of the city’s Personnel Department, said the new policy guidelines would include all people applying for safety-sensitive jobs. In addition to police, these would include firefighters, paramedics, heavy equipment operators (including truck drivers), port pilots and a variety of maintenance jobs.

The council’s directive left open the possibility that the policy could be expanded to include all job classifications. Allen said the proposal will be returned to the City Council within six months.

Glenn Rothner, legal counsel for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, criticized the policy as a “quick-fix” reaction to societal “hysteria” over drug and alcohol abuse. Drug consultants and laboratories are like pushers, Rothner said, who tell employers to “try testing--you’ll feel better. . . . And of course the employers become hooked.”

No Proof Seen

Rothner and Paul Schrade of the ACLU of Southern California both stressed that there is no substantive evidence of a drug problem among city employees. Testing methods have proven capricious, they stressed, noting that various over-the-counter medications and even bagels covered with poppy seeds can resemble traces of heroin in lab analyses.

However, in an interview, Allen said he perceived a dramatic increase in drug- and alcohol-related problems in Civil Service disciplinary hearings during the last two years. Among the city’s 40,000 employees, “You have to believe we have not less a problem than exists in the general population,” Allen said.

Under current practices, supervisors are supposed to refer for medical examinations any employee who shows signs of drug or alcohol abuse. However, Allen said, such referrals happen very seldom.

The 12-0 approval came after Councilman Nate Holden asked that pre-employment screening be dropped from the proposal. Holden argued that a tougher enforcement of existing policy would prove sufficient--a policy that enables medical personnel who suspect a need for further tests to order one. Only Councilmen Richard Alatorre and Robert Farrell joined Holden in voting for an unsuccessful motion that would have asked for pre-employment testing to be considered separately.