As graduation nears, students are scrambling to find jobs. We all want to make good money so we can pay off loans, buy a new car and eat gourmet meals instead of mac and cheese or PB & J every night. Most of us won’t be that lucky, but as we search the great abyss for that dream job, there is something that we all may have to face … workplace drug testing.

In Iowa, current regulations restrict most workplace testing, but the Iowa House voted 54-44 last week to rewrite the law, which has been on the books for 10 years. That vote handed the proposal to the Senate. The proposal includes five different situations in which employers could use drug and alcohol tests.

First, the proposal would give employers the say-so to administer unannounced, random testing of their employees, which is restricted in the current law. Although opponents argue this is a violation of privacy, unannounced tests give employers more insight in the drug use of employees. With announced tests, drug-using employees will temporarily limit or stop using drugs if they know they’ll be taking the test. Why? Because it is a deterrent.

Take, for example, breathalizers in cars. Some convicted drunk drivers are required to blow into a device before their car will start. Don’t you think that knowing they have to blow keeps them from drinking? This is the best way to assess drug use in the workplace.

Second, drug tests may be ordered for all job applicants, which would change the current law that restricts most pre-employment tests. This is where most ISU students would fall under the drug-testing umbrella.

You have several interviews lined up and you are pretty excited about that. One thing that might not be smart to do is to celebrate with alcohol or drugs the day before your interview because you might be surprised when the company tells you they need a urine sample. Screening job applicants by drug tests has become commonplace for a wide variety of jobs and sometimes, for internships. Students should keep this in mind.

This leads to the third arm of the Iowa proposal — allowing drug testing in investigations of workplace accidents. Testing for investigational purposes is vital. Because drug users are a danger to the workplace, any accident should include drug testing. There is no reason why investigators shouldn’t check every possible cause.

Fourth, employers would be able to test employees during or after drug rehabilitation. Drug rehab has a purpose — to help the drug user. This type of testing not only serves the best interests of the company, but also the employee, who is trying to overcome an addiction.

Fifth, an employee may have to take a test if the employer has “reasonable suspicion” that illegal drugs are being used or that the employee is under the influence.

Now, a higher legal standard says employers who wish to test an employee must show “probable cause” that an employee is impaired.

Under the weaker standard, any employee who is suspicious can be ordered to take a test, which may give rise to more tests in the workplace.

Opponents say this type of testing is also a violation of privacy. However, if reasonable suspicion exists, we must remember that the employer has the safety of the employee, co-workers and customers in mind.

Simply, drug testing is good. The Iowa Legislature’s effort to change the current law shows concern for safety. And safety is a key issue here.

Think about the safety of the company, its workers and the people the company serves. Although drug use is pretty much a stupid thing to begin with, drug use in certain jobs is particularly dangerous.

Construction workers have one of the highest rates of drug use among jobs. Without a doubt, this is one occupation that should have strict testing. Drug-using construction workers are putting themselves in danger when they are operating road graters, pouring concrete or standing on the beams of a high-rise building. In addition, the employee’s work may put others, including co-workers and the general public in danger. What if the worker on drugs drops the beam on a co-worker? What if a worker on drugs drives the road grater into a car driving by the construction site?

What about people who work in hospitals? Would you want your blood to be taken by a drug user? Would you want your surgeon to be on drugs? What about your ambulance driver?

Think of the assembly line at your favorite car manufacturer. Would you want the person installing your seat belts or air bag to be on drugs?

You want to make a big purchase, like a car or a house. Would you want your loan officer to be on drugs? What about your stock broker who is investing your life savings in securities? That doesn’t sound very safe, does it?

Someday, most of us will have children. Would you want to take your child to a day care that employs people on drugs?

Why don’t we localize drug use among employees to see if it would affect the everyday life of ISU students? We all pay enough money to the university. Would you be very happy if your money was paying a professor who is on drugs? What if you had a drug-using professor for a class?

During these horrendous winter months, the buses have been crammed with students trying to avoid the elements. Bus drivers keep telling the standing riders to move to the back of the bus to make room for more passengers. What if your Cy-Ride bus driver was on drugs?

Setting all these examples aside, the overall picture is clear. Drug use, for the most part, is illegal. People who violate the law should pay for the consequences of this use because they place others and themselves in danger.

Although all five parts of the proposal before Iowa lawmakers are good, the best two are unannounced testing and testing for all job applicants. After all, prevention is easier than intervention.

---

Erin Payne is a junior in journalism and mass communication and political science from Rock Rapids.