October 22, 2003

Thank you for the opportunity to express our views on the proposal for expanding the current rules on employee drug testing to include hair and saliva tests.

The Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO is opposed to changing the rules at the current time.

First, we would note that the professed reason for workplace drug testing is to ensure that workers are not impaired due to the influence of drugs or alcohol while on the job. None of the tests proposed will determine actual impairment. Second, research has shown that drug testing through urinalysis has not been cost effective for employers, but has been used to harass workers and turn employers into drug law enforcers. If employers truly want to ensure that their workers are not impaired on the job, whether due to drug use or any other factor that might hinder job performance, they would conduct non-intrusive impairment tests, which have been proven successful in improving workplace safety.

Despite years of lobbying by the testing labs, the federal government has not approved hair or saliva analysis for federal employees or anyone in a federally regulated industry, such as airlines, railroads and nuclear power companies. Presumably, this is due to the problems noted below.

Hair Testing

There is little link between a positive result on a hair test and a person’s on-the-job condition. Hair analysis has a “wide detection window,” because metabolites remain in the hair until it is cut. Any off-duty usage, even if it occurred years ago, could trigger a positive test and cost a person their job, yet very recent use may not be detected.

Not only does hair testing fail to indicate impairment on the job, it is unreliable due to external contamination. External substances readily cling to hair, and the drug metabolites on the hair surface cannot be distinguished from drug metabolites in the hair shaft. False positives may result from passive exposure to drugs, and even people who don’t use drugs sometimes have the residue on their hair because they are around drug users. Marijuana smoke, cocaine “dust” and other residue can get into the hair at parties, bars and other public places. While most hair labs say they can wash away such outside contamination before testing the inside of the hair, not everyone in the scientific community is convinced that such thorough washing can be done or that it can be done by all labs.

Further, hair testing may be racially biased. Coarse textured hair, such as that of many blacks and Latinos, seems to attract and retain external contamination more readily than the smooth hair of most Caucasians.

Although the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not protect those who currently use illegal drugs, it does outlaw discrimination against former drug users. The law is unclear as to how long a person must have abstained to be considered a former user. Hair tests may provide history of drug use that would discriminate against a former user and thus be in violation of the ADA.

Saliva tests have not yet proven to be as accurate as other tests and need to be further developed before being adopted as a viable alternative.

In addition, a rule allowing saliva testing would to be in conflict with the current legislation. Iowa Code 730.5(7)(b) states: “Sample collection for testing of current employees shall be performed so that the specimen is split into two components at the time of collection in the presence of the individual from whom the sample or specimen is collected. The second portion of the specimen or sample shall be of sufficient quantity to permit a second, independent confirmatory test as provided in paragraph ‘i’.” It is unclear how split samples of saliva would be created and handled.

Because of the above concerns, the Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO is opposed to changing the current rules on drug testing. If there is to be a change in the drug-testing law, it should be done through legislation and with proper consideration of the most reliable and least offensive technology available.