Random Drug Testing for Firefighters - Research Paper Example

Random Drug Testing for Firefighters The paper deals with the issue of random drug testing for firefighters. It is claimed, that in the of public safety it is necessary to take these measures. Arguments pro and contra random drug testing are provided further on in order to present an unprejudiced argumentation in favor of a positive effect of drug usage prevention among firefighters. On the basis of current researches and studies, factual evidence supporting random drug testing among firefighters is presented further on. Introduction A special attention to random drug testing for firefighters is the issue of crucial importance. The Boston firefighters, who died in Roxbury, as well as Firefighter Cahill who was stopped by police in his car in July 2005 and refused taking a Breathalyzer test, witness the fact that firefighters violate their professional functions and civil obligations. There is a need to develop and promote campaigns, which will propagate a proper and healthy way of life. Officials measures directed on obligatory random drug testing introduction are quite justified. Currently, there is an overall tendency to a fight against drug or alcohol testing among firefighters or policemen at work. This tendency is justified, because drug or alcohol usage leads do dreadful consequences destroying lives of many people Facts for random drug testing In accordance with statistics: “6,354 firefighters, more than half the department, have been randomly tested since 2004, with 24 testing positive” (Ellement, 2011). The echoes of struggle against drug usage by firefighters and police have been heard since 1999. Since that time it was supposed to promote random drug testing. Firefighters in Boston are being tested when they are hired and then they can be tested only under suspicion. There is a strong claim that it is impossible to use drugs or alcohol at work. Therefore: “Six days a week, officials use a computer to select firehouses randomly and, without notice, visit at least one of them to test all firefighters and officers at work there. All members are subject to urine tests” (Ellement, 2011). This is a perfect evidence of zero-tolerance policy with regards to drug users among firefighters. Officials from other states claim that firefighters from Cincinnati, Chicago, Cleveland, and Philadelphia Minneapolis are also engaged in random drug testing. An official Michael Kroeger from Cincinnati claims that there was an accident, when a firefighter killed a man, when he was driving in a drunken condition. Officials from different states claim that random drug testing occurs, when firefighters do not know about it. Thus, there is a guarantee that it provides with eligible results of testing (Fendrich and Soo, 2002). Moreover, this policy does not concern fire departments only. It is much deeper. It is more relevant to follow the line of officials, commissioners and other people supporting drug random testing policies, then to agree with people who are against this policy. Still, in accordance with modern statistics, it is clearly seen that there are more firefighters, who have negative results of random drug testing, than those who used drugs or alcohol at work (e.g. Hillard v. Bagnola, 698 N.E.2d 170 (1st Dist. 1998). Moreover, there is a gradual tendency to decrease of cases of drug usage at work among firefighters (2 men out of 1,000 did not pass drug test) (Ellement, 2011). Unfortunately, there are factual evidences that death of firefighters in Roxbury was not a worthy example of the necessity to conduct healthy way of life for firefighters. Facts against random testing In order to consider the issue of random testing of firefighters, there is a necessity to consider the facts witnessing negative effects or irrelevance of such kind of practices. The strongest argument used by antagonists of random testing is violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which has been already mentioned in the beginning of the paper. Random drug testing can be interpreted as arbitrary and unreasonable intrusions by the government in private lives of the citizens (Fisher). In spite of the fact that aforementioned supportive facts of random drug testing are approved and just, public response concerning this issue is ambiguous. Many people claim that this violates privacy and the fourth amendment (search and seizure with no special reasons for it). For example, in a well-known case Capua v. Plainfield 643 F.Supp. 1507 (D.C. N.J. 1986) a violation of the fourth amendment in the result of mass drug testing of firefighters was approved. For fire departments it is of crucial importance to follow legal principles described in “state laws[1], collective bargaining agreements and the inevitable human resource problems that will arise from drug testing” (Fisher). In case fire departments want to introduce random drug testing for fire fighters, they should be aware of individual’s attitudes concerning these practices. On the one hand, proponents of testing claim that such kind of practices protects the whole fire department from wrong practices and personal injuries, but on the other hand no one takes into account individual feelings and emotions of fire fighters who may have never used drugs. Their psyche, emotional conditions may be stricken in case random drug testing is introduced. Such tests can be interpreted by firefighters as forced bodily intrusion (Fisherman). A counterargument to these suppositions can be found in random drug testing introduced by the Department of Transportation (DOT), after an accident. There was the case Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Assn, (Fisher) when the Court underlined the importance of safe operations in the railroad, which were more crucial for the government, than personal interests of railroad employees. Another example can be illustrated by the case National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, when the Supreme Court has held that: “Customs employees seeking promotions or transfers to positions involving drug interdiction or the use of a firearm could be compelled to submit to random drug testing. The Court found that the agency had an "almost unique mission," as it was the first obstacle against the smuggling of illicit drugs into the United States” (Fisher). Consequently, for the American government it was clear that people who deal with criminals or drug users are not involved in higher risk talking in comparison with other employees. Therefore, it is relevant to claim that antagonists of random drug testing have their own arguments protecting their point of view. The common point between proponents and opponents of random drug testing can be found on the basis of a reasonable suspicion. It is surely more effective to introduce drug testing not at random, but basing on certain facts or suspicion. Moreover, the Courts of America have developed a number of criteria relevant to reasonable suspicion test conduct: an employee should be noted in drug activity or show symptoms of drug usage; to show erratic or abnormal behavior; be subjected to previous arrests for drug-related accidents; employee’s changes in work performance or other facts witnessing that an employee was engaged in activities connected with drugs usage (Fisher). Another supportive objective argument in favor of random drug testing can be illustrated by the following case. After 60 years of dedication to their service for firefighting, firefighters were tested positive for the usage of marijuana. On the one hand, it is clear that employers of fire department fired these employees. What is interesting is that firefighters, who were accused of drug usage at work and had to retire or were fired, do not think that such kind of decision is fair: Marcus Moore (one of the forcefully retired firefighters) claims: "I feel - to ask a person to risk his life and be compassionate towards his fellow men ... I feel its a little harsh to be thrown to the curb" (Firefighters Resign, Retire After Failing Drug Test). Moreover, this fire department conducts zero-tolerant policy, but there is a notion for rehabilitation for dismissed employees (Knowles & Riccucci, 2001). Accused firefighters had a right to appeal for the Civil Service Commission to protect their rights and to dispute decision of their employers. Still, it is a well-known fact that in such cases the accused employees has never won. As far as we can see, there is an option for accused firefighters to protect their rights, but as a rule public safety means more than violated rights of privacy of firefighters who were accused of drug usage. Public response to drug testing Uniformed public safety employees should be tested for drugs usage: this is a draft of public opinion. Ryan (2010) claims: “Drug testing of uniformed public safety employees should be a state requirement and should not be subject to collective bargaining. Uniform drug testing serves a state purpose and municipalities should not have to forego management improvements to secure what benefits the firefighters as well” (Ryan, 2010). Thus, from a public perspective prevention of drug usage in firefighters’ practices signifies an advancement of management and protection policies. In 1999 cost parameters of random drug testing prevented fire departments of America from introduction of this method of protection. Nevertheless, there is a correct notion: “If drug testing is to be achieved through binding arbitration, it should not be at the expense of sacrificing other important management improvements or exceeding the City’s financial parameters” (Herring, 2007). Another problem is usage of alcohol among firefighters. Those firefighters, who were found dead in Boston after fire used alcohol and drugs. Unfortunately, some of citizens claim that in one way or another, two men died in the name of protection of others. They have completed their most important goal: they have saved human lives at the expense of their own lives. From this perspective, random drug testing is an unnecessary step taken by fire departments (Levinson, 2003). Actually, in reality there are a few of fire departments, where random drug testing is being conducted. Very often people are tested when they are hired or in the process of their work. In Boston only one local fire department out of nine polled has introduced policies of random drug testing and testing when being hired. The actions of departments, where there are no random drug testing can be also justified. Fire Chief Ollie Gadson claims: “We do not have random drug testing in the department, but if its found that an individual has issues - like a past history of abuse or any problem with drugs or alcohol - they can be ordered to random testing" (Herring, 2007). Only in case a firefighter is supposed to be intoxicated, then he may be sent to drug or alcohol testing. Still, from our perspective, such attitude is too tolerant. Firefighters are responsible for lives of many people. What if he comes intoxicated and nobody will see it? Then, not only his life, but lives of other people can be destroyed. Fire Chiefs should conduct zero-tolerant policy with this respect, because their employees are in a safety critical environment. For fire fighters it is important to remain sober even if they are not at work. Any moment they can be called in and what’s then? Of course, firefighters are normal people with their weaknesses and tiredness, but it is desirable for them to remain patient and tolerant. They have chosen too responsible occupation and they are responsible for the lives of other human beings. From this perspective, it is clear why public is too much concerned about sobriety of firefighters. In accordance with Fire Chief Gadson: “I think as far as the monitoring (of drug and alcohol use), that is more of a collective bargaining issue. The community would have to look at instituting those policies and there have been some issues with the unions as far as allowing random testing to take place” (Herring, 2007). A social aspect of random drug testing is clear and justified: the public supports these tests, because it is sure that in such a way people are able to protect themselves from potential accidents. It is necessary to enforce these policies in order firefighters were more responsible. It may be claimed that this policy is too intimidating, but in reality it is not so. Why should firefighters be afraid of random testing? Only those who are using drugs or alcohol may be scared. It is a kind of psychological pressure and, supposedly, those who are potential drug users would quit the job (Fendrich and Soo, 2002). Moreover, Gadson claims: "I would only highlight the fact that the job of a firefighter is very stressful. Maybe there may be a need to look at some resources that firefighters might be able to use in the event that they feel they have those stressors in their life and need help dealing with problems"(Herring, 2007). There are examples of accidents in the result of intoxicated firefighters work, but it is necessary to advance and develop safety policies both on the national and local levels. Conclusion In the result of our research, we have developed the idea of the necessity of random drug testing introduction in fire departments on national and local levels. Life safety of potential victims of fire weighs down the balance in comparison with privacy violations, which occurs in the result of random drug testing. In case test is conducted in compliance with legal norms of this process, no violation of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution occurs. Moreover, it is necessary to take into account psychological factors influencing on fire fighters job performance, such as stress, risk, fear and many others. These people are under constant pressure and it is better to take control over their actions in the name of public safety. Firefighters should be able to deal with daily problems and stressful situations at work by their own efforts. Unfortunately, not all firefighters are strong and emotionally stable people. Even in the course of time and in spite of a rich experience, possible emotional disorders may occur. Thus, we concede that drug or alcohol usage among firefighters is a possible phenomenon. We can also surely claim that it is necessary to prevent accidents, which may occur in the result of job performance of intoxicated firefighters. Consequently, in spite of costs spent on random drug testing, extra time, emotional, social and other aspects it may concern, there is a need to take this prevention measure in the name of human lives safety and in the name of dignity profession of a firefighter. References 1. Ellement, John, R. Two fail, more than 1,000 pass, Boston firefighter drug tests. (April 05, 2011). Retrieved August 14, 2011, from: 2. Fendrich, M., & Soo Kim, J. Y. (2002). The Experience and Acceptability of Drug Testing: Poll Trends. Journal of Drug Issues, 32(1), 81+. 3. Firefighters Resign, Retire After Failing Drug Test. Retrieved August 14, 2011, from:. 4. Fisher, David, J. An Analysis of Firefighter drug testing under the Fourth Amendment. International Journal of Drug Testing. Retrieved August 14, 2011, from:. 5. Herring, Amber. (May, 2007). Firefighters Drug Testing is Rare. Retrieved August 14, 2011, from: . 6. Knowles, E. A., & Riccucci, N. M. (2001). Drug Testing in the Public Sector: An Interpretation Grounded in Rosenblooms Competing-Perspectives Model. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 424. 7. Levinson, M. H. (2003). An Extensional Approach to Drug Legalization. et Cetera, 60(2), 125+. 8. Ryan, Andrew (August 10, 2010). First batch of random drug tests for firefighters comes back clean. The Boston Globe. Retrieved August 14, 2011, from: . Read More