Union Against Drug Testing ?

Source: September 6, 2008, Charleston Gazzette

MSHA: Test coal miners for drugs and alcohol


The White House administration will propose a rule early next week to require drug testing of miners who work in "safety sensitive" jobs in the nation's coal and non-coal mines.

U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration ( MSHA ) officials are pushing for speedy approval of the rule, offering the mining community and the public a tight 30-day comment period - less than half the time provided for two other rules proposed by MSHA this year.

"An alcohol- and drug-free mine program as proposed in this rule will contribute to the prevention of such incidents and provide all miners, regardless of what state they work in and the size of the mine they work for, equal safety protection from working alongside miners under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs on the job,"

MSHA said in a proposal scheduled to be published in Monday's Federal Register.

The proposed rule would replace existing standards for drugs and alcohol at metal and non-metal mines with an industry-wide rule that also covers coal operations.

It would designate certain substances - alcohol and a list of controlled substances - that could not be possessed on mine property or used while performing safety-sensitive job duties, unless they were being used according to a valid prescription.

Mine operators would be required to establish an alcohol- and drug-free program, including a written policy, employee education, supervisory training and drug testing for miners in safety-sensitive jobs and their supervisors. Safety-sensitive job duties are defined as "any type of work activity where a momentary lapse of critical concentration could result in an accident, injury or death."

Company policies also must include treatment referrals for miners who violate the policy. The proposed rule also would require those who violate the prohibitions to be removed from the performance of job-sensitive duties until they complete recommended treatment and their alcohol- and drug-free status is confirmed by testing.

"Mining under the best of circumstances can be dangerous," said MSHA chief Richard Stickler, "and the use of alcohol and illegal substances creates additional, unnecessary hazards in the workplace."

MSHA's Federal Register notice did not include any mention of a public hearing on the proposal.

Department of Labor spokesman David James said the agency anticipates receiving a request for a hearing and that MSHA "is preparing to do" such a hearing.

"There will likely be a notice for public hearing published sometime during the public comment period," James said.

Coal industry officials have long sought an MSHA rule to require drug testing of miners, but the United Mine Workers union has questioned the need for such testing and worried about the specifics of how companies would carry out such testing.

Kentucky adopted its own drug-testing program for miners in 2006, and Virginia passed similar rules in 2007. West Virginia has declined to adopt drug-testing requirements for coal miners.

In October 2005, MSHA announced that it was working on such a rule, but after a string of mine disasters in 2006 and 2007, the drug-testing proposal appeared to have been put on the back burner as the agency scrambled to enact numerous safety reforms mandated by Congress.

Then, in early June, MSHA officials submitted their proposed rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for its review. The OMB approved the proposal late last week, records show.

In its proposed rule notice, MSHA said

"a preliminary review of fatal and non-fatal mine accident records revealed a number of instances in which alcohol and drugs or drug paraphernalia were found or reported, or where the post-accident toxicology screen revealed the presence of alcohol or drugs."

MSHA cited a study that showed

more than 13 percent of full-time miners were heavy alcohol users and 7 percent admitted that they had used illicit drugs within the past month.

"Using alcohol and/or drugs can affect a miner's coordination and judgment significantly at a time when he or she needs to be alert, aware and capable of performing tasks where there is a substantial risk of injury to oneself or others," the MSHA notice said.

"Even prescription medications may affect a miner's perception and reaction time. Mining is a complicated and hazardous occupation, and a clear focus on the work at hand is a crucial component of mine safety."

During a previous comment period, UMW officials questioned whether MSHA had shown the need for a nationwide drug-testing program.

MSHA responded, "Although a subsequent internal [Department of Labor] review of accident reports failed to reveal a significant number of cases where alcohol or drugs were determined to be causative factors, it did reveal a lack of consistency in whether and how alcohol and drug tests are performed and in the investigative process used to determine whether alcohol or drugs may have been factors.

"In fact, currently accident investigations do not routinely include an inquiry into the use of alcohol or drugs and this is a failure that the proposed rule intends to address," MSHA said.

MSHA estimated that the drug-testing rule would cost the mining industry $16 million during its first year and $13 million every year after that.

At Least One Union Group Sees the Light On Drug Testing

Source: 2008 - August - Casino City - Las Vegas Gaming Wire

(Note: Drug Testing, including Random Drug testing is legal in all 50 States, despite political attempts to distort this fact. Furthermore, oral fluid-based on-site drug screening is the only feasible, cost-effective, and accurate method to conduct random testing at construction site. Oral fluid sceening can be directly observed, preventing the prevalent practice of drug abuser adulterating or substituting urine-based testing, and corporate security staff can administer the tests vs. relying upon $8-$10/hr third party collection personnel and sites with transient workers. Furthermore, leading on-site oral fluid tests screen for drugs commony found today on construction sites such as oxcodone and hydrocodone - tranditional NIDA-5 and/or SAMHSA-5 tests do not. )

Union rep in favor of drug test
11 August 2008


LAS VEGAS, Nevada -- Building contractors should be given authority to conduct random drug and alcohol tests of construction workers, either through legislation or through negotiations with unions, a spokesman for a construction trades group said a day after three union members were fired for entering the CityCenter job site after drinking at nearby bars.

Steve Holloway, executive vice president of the Las Vegas chapter of the Associated General Contractors, said Friday that the number of construction workers who are drinking on the job represents a small fraction of the total work force on the site.

However, "it's a large enough minority that it needs to be dealt with, probably by legislation that would allow a construction contractor to perform random drug and alcohol testing," he said.

Holloway is a member of an eight-person task force that was set up in the wake of a series of 12 construction worker deaths at Strip sites in the past 18 months. The committee is looking at possible legislation to be considered by the 2009 Legislature.

Holloway said none of the union contracts now in effect locally allow for random testing of construction workers. (NOTE: UNIONS, OWNERS, INSURERS & CONTRACTORS NEED TO ACT NOW TO ALLOW AND IMPLEMENT RANDOM TESTING VIA ALL SPECIMEN TYPES)

"That needs to be changed by statute, or by negotiations with the union," he said. "It should probably be by statute because we have just as many nonunion workers as we do union."

Steve Redlinger, spokesman for the Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, an affiliate for 17 labor unions, said lawmakers can't legislate personal responsibility without coming dangerously close to treading on civil liberties. (NOTE: THIS STATEMENT IS COMPLETELY FALSE - U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT RANDOM DRUG TESTING IS LEGAL AND THAT COMPANIES CAN (AND DO) IMPLEMENT RANDOM TESTING FOR SAFETY PURPOSES - IT IS FIRST AND FORMOST A FEDERAL LEGAL OBLIGATION FOR COMPANIES TO ENSURE A SAFE WORKPLACE FOR ALL EMPLOYEES... THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE AT CONTRUCTION SITES WITHOUT RANDOM DRUG TESTING (VIA OBSERVED SPECIMEN COLLECTION) IN CONCERT WITH EDUATIONAL PROGRAMS AND SUPPORT.)

Another member of the committee, state Assemblyman John Oceguera, D-Las Vegas, said he would not support giving employers "unfettered abilities" to randomly drug test employees because that would infringe on the individuals' rights. (NOTE- A PERSONAL OPINION VS. FACT)

A company should need to show there is "some indication" a worker is impaired by drugs or alcohol before it could demand a test, the state Assembly's majority leader said. (NOTE-THIS IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LACK OF EDUCATION ON THE TOPIC OF SUBSTANCE MISUSE-VISUAL OBSERVATION FAILS OVER 90% OF THE TIME TO DETECT SUBSTANCE MISUSE-ONLY RANDOM DRUG TESTING PROVIDES THE REQUISITE LEVEL OF DETERENCE AND DECTECTION).

Committee member and state Sen. Maggie Carlton, D-Las Vegas, sided with Oceguera in expressing concern over individual rights.

Existing union contracts already say companies can request a drug or alcohol test if an employee displays erratic behavior or is slurring speech, a union official said. Most of the current agreements also let employers demand tests before someone is hired or if they are involved in an accident.

Other committee members, Clark County commissioners Chris Giunchigliani and Rory Reid, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman and state Senate Minority Leader Steven Horsford, D-Las Vegas, did not return calls for comment. Trades Council President Rick Johnson also is on the committee.

The committee will probably reconvene in late August or early September and begin drafting a bill for next year, Holloway said.

The committee members' comments come two days after the Review-Journal reported that it had photographed 10 construction workers drinking at Strip bars before they went on to the CityCenter work site, a violation of rules set by the general contract, its subcontractors and the unions.

Dozens of additional workers were seen drinking alcohol outside convenience stores and inside bars, but they were identified as being off for the day.

On Thursday, three ironworkers members who were photographed returning to the job site were identified and fired by general contractor Perini Corp.

Perini officials said they have not identified any other workers yet, but the company will continue its investigation next week, said Doug Mure, Perini's vice president of human resources and risk management.

Chuck Lenhart, business agent for Ironworkers Local 433, said he met Friday with one of the disciplined workers, who admitted his behavior was inappropriate.

"When I spoke to one of them this morning, he got it," said Lenhart, who declined to give the workers' names or to describe their jobs. "He understood and I believe he is going to get some help."

Lenhart said the fired workers will need to go through counseling, at the union's expense, before they can be cleared to work on other jobs -- in two or three months, at the earliest. The workers won't be reassigned to another job site until they are cleared by a counselor, he added. (NOTE: AN EXCELLENT APPROACH BY THE UNION - SUPPORT, YET MONITOR)

However, each case is different and, if the workers have any prior disciplinary action on their records, they could be removed from the union.

But that is not a step the union wants to take, he said.

"When there is somebody that may have a problem they're not out the door," said Lenhart, who noted the Ironworkers local also screens workers before they join the union.

"We try to get help for them. Some people accept it and some people don't."

However, the responsibility ultimately lies with the individual worker to do the right thing for themselves and the workers around them. (NOTE: TRUE-HOWEVER, IN VIRTUALLY ALL CASES ABUSERS WILL NOT SEEK ASSISTANCE ON THERE OWN UNLESS DETECTED, OR AN INCIDENT OCCURS)

"They have free will and they can make their choices," Lenhart said. "Sometimes, they make bad choices. That's what I'm concerned about in this industry: When you have people who make these types of choices to (drink alcohol before work), there's a possibility of them hurting someone else on the job site."

Perini plans to look at what the company can do to control alcohol problems on its job site, although Mure said: "Our focus right now is the immediate identification (of the workers in the photos)."

The Perini executive did dismiss one rumor that went around the job site Thursday suggesting the company planned to "close" the job site so workers could not leave during lunch.

Mure said trying to close the 77-acre construction site, which employs 7,700 workers, would be impractical.

"That's not even really feasible on a project like CityCenter or any of the major construction projects in Las Vegas," he said. "Rumors are rumors. You've seen the site, it isn't something that could even be considered."

Unions Oppose Drug Testing & Safety .. Again

Some Unions just don't get it, preferring to spread misinformation and rely upon scare tactics vs. acting responsibly and in the best interests of safety.


1. Random drug testing is NOT unconstitutional, nor illegal in the United States

2. Teachers should be subject to random drug testing, just as should firefighters, police, and other individuals in occupations where drug abuse would create serious safety issues.

3. Random drug testing via observed speciment collection, has proven to be effective at both detection and deterrence.

(Source: ABC News, KITV.com)

Random Drug Test For Teachers Meets Opposition

Teachers Union Says Drug Test Unconstitutional

HONOLULU -- There are more problems with a plan to randomly drug test school teachers. The union that represents public school teachers now said it can't knowingly agree to a plan it believes is unconstitutional.


The Hawaii State Teachers Association sent a letter to the school board that revealed where the two sides were far apart. The two sides had agreed to have a drug testing plan in place at the end of June, but missed the deadline.


Those eager to begin the new school year said the start is being clouded by drug testing controversy."I hope there is some reasonable resolution to this. It just going to take away from education and that's a shame," principal Mike Haramo said.


"We are starting the school year and they are still talking about it. You just wonder how long it's going to go on for," parent Rikki Wells said.


Wells said he worries it's all about red tape and politics and not enough focus on the children.Dragging it on, going into the courts, the political fees, the arguing back and forth and the truth," Wells said.


The first day of class for most public schools is the end of July, and at some campuses, teachers are to report to work next week.


Others who get random drug tests frequently said the same should apply to teachers.


"I think everyone in the HSTA should be drug tested just for the safety of the children," a construction worker said. Gloria Chi thinks random testing a good idea, but she thinks taking classroom money to pay for it is bad. "BOE should be doing something for the kids for education but the government should really pay for it," Chi said.


And when pressed about what appears to be an about face for the teachers union...


"Random is what teachers agreed to. We agreed to random and reasonable suspicion, but when we got into procedures we found complications of constitutional issues," HSTA Executive Director Mike McCartney said.


McCartney said the latest proposal is unworkable. Both sides have appealed to the labor board to help resolve the conflict.

Boston Massachusetts Fire Fighters Union - Not the Norm

Random drug-testing programs are problematic for some unions.

Union leadership claims random drug testing is a violation of workers' right to privacy. Yet, this is appears to be an indefensible position.

Concerns of employee safety and public safety should be the #1 priority with union leaders. Sadly, it may not case for some.

Many non-union employees are required to have a pre-employment drug test and a random drug test. If workers refuse testing, they are terminated. If employees fail a drug test ... they are terminated - (which I don't view as best practice)-, or suspended and subsequently referred to an employee assistance program (EAP), which may or may not be funded by company insurance.

Simple... straight forward... and effective.

Random drug testing, conducted properly, is an effective deterent to on-the-job substance abuse, as well as a detection mechanism. What an employee does at home is not the business of any employer. When employee's behaviors effect the safety of their collegues or the public... it's not only their employers' business... it's their employers' legal obligation.

While many unions have adopted, or at least allowed random drug and alcohol testing, the Boston / Massachusetts Fire Fighters Union has failed to protect its members and the public at large.

No employee, or the public wants a drug or alcohol impaired individual in a safety sensitive position.

The Boston Fire Department had a recent tragedy in which two fatalities tested "positive" for drugs and/or alcohol. Whether this information should have been released to the public the way it was... is certainly questionable. No one should question the bravery of the individual involve, and most would not consider it.

The subsequent stonewalling of the fire fighters unions relative to drug testing is unconscionable, however, and a disgrace to everyone.

Drug Abuse in Construction & The Role of Union Leadership

"A construction work site is no place for an alcohol- or drug-impaired worker," says LI UNA General President Terence M. O'Sullivan. "To limit this risk and, also, to ensure that workers who need help get it, the Laborers support efforts to establish comprehensive drug-free workplace programs in the construction industry."



Abstract

Union stewards, general members, & senior management benefit from training on the many manifestations of substance misuse in the workplace, and their impact on working people and their children, contractors, insurers, and owners. Avitar's novel approach to workplace substance abuse management can assist in providing a framework of knowledge as well as implementation monitoring tools.

Joint development of the training curriculum, drug policy, and testing programs, would, however, require the direct involvement of union management. While Avitar can supply the technical components, to gain organization-wide commitment requires high level of participation and support of union leadership. Arguably, this leadership has been lacking in specific cases.

Unions would benefit by working with contractors, owners, insurers, and innovative drug-free workplace service providers to establish comprehensive drug-free workplace policies that include an education component to demonstrate their commitment to a drug-free workplace, support random testing via observed specimen collection, and provide employee assistance programs.

Random testing via oral is convenient, effective, non-invasive, and targets "on-the-job" drug misuse. Unlike traditional urine-based testing, oral fluid testing;

1. deters substance misuse
2. reduces accidents, workers comp claims and,
2. improves workforce image and quality.


While Construction Union may be aware of the unresolved, and epidemic problem of substance abuse in the construction sector, they may not be aware that a solution exists and the importance of their playing a leading role in mitigating the issue.

Substance abuse diminishes the ability of unions to build membership and mobilize current members.
- It erodes self-esteem and autonomy and undermines union participation, power, and leadership.
- It damages the solidarity of the union community and weakens its ability to withstand employer "attacks".

1. Unfortunately many contractors, owners, and insurers view unions as an impediment to resolution of the substance abuse in the construction sector. The lack of a comprehensive and effective occupational drug-free workplace approach by Unions contributes ineffective, ad-hoc industry practices. Similarly, the AFL-CIO program requiring urine testing and specific vendors, even further delays positive, pro-active change.

2. Unions must be proactive in efforts to deter the abuse of controlled substances and alcohol on construction sites. Laborers, management, and all related constituencies would benefit by developing and negotiating a drug and alcohol testing template programs for all contractors / owners / insurers.

3. A comprehensive drug-free workplace program MUST include:
random drug testing (via observed collection - traditional urine-based testing is relatively ineffective),
education, and
assistance.


Measurement is crucial to the recognition, treatment, and prevention of substance abuse related occupational injuries, and other negative impacts. Deterrence and identification of substance abuse benefits the individuals, their immediate coworkers, workers throughout the industry, and others exposed to the negative impacts of substance misuse. (insurers, owners, contractors, public).



4. What union members do away from work is a private affair as long as they aren't impaired when reporting to work, however, traditional urine drug testing is contrary to this notion. Neither unions nor employers should not be allowed to dictate behaviors while away from work.


5. Deterrence is the goal, however, detection and assitance are true benefits.
Union MAP's (member assistance programs) are underutilized (not used 60% of the time). MAPs serve members as well as health & MMwelfare funds, contractors, owners, alike.
- MAPs help laborers & families access to assistance most needed for personal problems/issues
- MAPs control costs (lack of care created costs far exceeding MAP cost).
Labor organizations can only offer assistance to their members on a variety of health, welfare, and safety issues, including substance use disorders, only if aware of the problem.





Sources and Additional Information:

1. 50% of abuse detected now involves prescription drugs, esp. pain relievers. The abuse / misuse of many popular prescription pain releivers is not tested via traditional DOT-based urine testing.

2. While approximately 15%- 20% of construction workers abuse drugs, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics survey significantly underestimate the incidence of work related injuries and illnesses. The United States does not have a comprehensive national surveillance system for occupational injuries and illnesses. Lacking this system, major sources of US occupational health data include the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) annual survey of occupational injuries and illnesses, workers' compensation records, and physician reporting systems. Data produced by these systems have been described as fragmentary, unreliable, and inconsistent. Moreover, they have been shown to underestimate the incidence of workrelated injuries, illnesses, and even fatalities by as much as several hundred percent. (Occupational injury and illness surveillance: Conceptual filters explain underreporting; Azaroff, Lenore S; Levenstein, Charles; Wegman, David H American Journal of Public Health 09-01-2002 )

3. 77% of adults with substance abuse disorders are employed - Results From the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 05-4062. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, September 2005, p. 72.

4. LIUNA MAPs save money - Detroit, first-quarter 2003 data indicate that the LAP saves the fund about $175,000 annually over the likely cost of service to members if no MAP existed. In Southern Illinois, drug expenditures for the first two quarters since MAP usage was mandated are running more than 50 percent below the previous year's average. In Massachusetts, since the MAP was established in 1991, the Fund has saved about $8.8 million in average length of service and per diem costs for in-patient care.

5. Substance use disorders affect people from all walks of life, workers & families. According to a 2005 Hazelden Foundation survey, more than 69 percent of employed people indicated that if a family member were struggling with abuse or addiction, it would negatively affect their ability to concentrate and be productive at work. In fact, 36 percent of people who are employed admitted that at least one of their coworkers had been distracted, less productive, or missed work because of alcohol/drug abuse or addiction within their family.

6. A key message for labor organizations to communicate to employers is that treatment for substance use disorders has substantial benefits for businesses. Reported job problems, including incomplete work, absenteeism, tardiness, work-related injuries, mistakes, and disagreements with supervisors, are cut by an average of 75 percent among employees who have received treatment for substance use disorders. Furthermore, treatment has a benefit-to-cost ratio of 7:1, with substance use disorder treatment costing $1,583 on average and having a monetary benefit to society of nearly $11,487.

7. Domestic violence is directly related to substance abuse. Despite the obvious importance of involving unions in domestic violence prevention with men, little works has been done is this area. This may reflect fears that unions would not be receptive to addressing domestic violence. Senior office holders within some unions have been hesitant to apply their leadership to this issue, for various reasons. Sometimes union leadership has not understood how widespread domestic violence is. Sometimes they have argued that it is a private matter best left to the couple affected. At other times they have expressed concern but felt pessimistic about their ability to do anything about it. And on other occasions they have felt torn between their desire to protect a worker from disciplinary action or job loss and their conviction that domestic violence is wrong.

- It is every employer's legal responsibility to ensure safety in the workplace. Domestic violence compromises the well-being, job performance, and productivity of valuable employees. Many of the attitudes and gender roles that increase men's risk of using domestic violence also predispose men to other high risk behaviors, such as drug and alcohol abuse, workplace violence, or taking unnecessary safety risks to demonstrate "toughness" to peers.
- Domestic violence is a leading cause of workplace violence; it also creates safety and health risks to everyone in the workplace:
- Since almost one in four women is affected by domestic violence, we can make a conservative estimate that 10% of employees may be affected by domestic violence.
- 24% of abused women said they were either late or missed days of work due to abuse
- 54% of abused women missed up to three full days of work per month.
- 94% of corporate security directors surveyed rank domestic violence as a high security problem at their company.
- Violence against women weakens unions and diminishes their ability to build membership or mobilize current members.
- Domestic violence is a safety and health issue for all members since perpetrators often stalk and harass women at their workplace, possibly jeopardizing co-workers as well. Additionally, domestic violence is a work/family issue, since it has devastating economic and personal consequences for the family.

8. Most union members are in support of drug testing (Discriminating characteristics of union members' attitudes toward drug testing in the workplace, Journal of Labor Research, 2007.)

Unions Wrong About Drug Testing

Why is drug testing subject to collective bargaining?

The Massachusetts Joint Labor-Management Committee has taken jurisdiction of the contract dispute between the City of Boston and the firefighters’ union (Local 718). However, this step does not mean that mandatory alcohol and drug testing is any closer to becoming a reality in the Boston Fire Department.

The president of the state firefighters’ union has argued that the Joint Labor-Management Committee cannot consider drug testing in arbitration.

That view should not prevail, as this contract must begin the effort to break through the imbedded culture of the Fire Department by including basic management reform measures and mandatory drug testing.



Clearly, it is in the broader interest of the Commonwealth that all uniformed public safety employees be required to annually undergo standard drug and alcohol testing.
While this contract may be settled before such change, drug testing should be a state public safety requirement, not subject to local negotiations.

Following a tragic restaurant fire in West Roxbury in August, in which two firefighters died, city officials in early October presented to Local 718 a comprehensive alcohol and drug testing policy for negotiation. The union has yet to respond in writing to the city’s proposal.

The Menino administration had put drug testing on the table in contract negotiations with Local 718 in 1999 !!!!!, and 2004 but no agreement was reached.

Union resistance and the city’s desire to secure other needed management reforms in the Fire Department at a reasonable cost are why drug testing has not been yet approved.

The firefighters’ union maintains that the Joint Labor-Management Committee cannot consider drug testing as an issue for arbitration in the Boston dispute because the city did not list drug testing in its petition filed last August. The union would prefer to negotiate this matter separately with the city for a reported 21 percent salary increase rather than have the Joint Labor-Management Committee require drug testing in an arbitration decision.

The union’s position is not supported by state law or the Joint Labor-Management Committee’s case history, which shows several examples of decisions rendered in fire union cases that include issues not listed in the initial petitions, including drug testing.

Local 718 has high expectations for a new contract with drug testing and points to the 1998 police contract that provided for drug testing and also accepted the Quinn Bill. However, in that contract, the police accepted no salary increases in fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002 when firefighters received 4 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively.

Also, drug testing was considered innovative nine years ago and not the norm that it is today. Indeed, random alcohol and drug testing is more common in major urban fire departments around the country, including Baltimore, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco.

The contract with Local 718 should include mandatory random alcohol and drug testing, but if it does not include other significant reform measures at a cost consistent with the recently negotiated public safety contracts, it should not be approved.

The stakes are too high for the welfare of the public and firefighters to settle for small incremental change in this contract.

Orignal Source: Boston Globe