Minor Jump in Positives
Police Unions Scalp Drug Tests of Hair

By REUVEN BLAU

The NYPD revealed last week that its new hair drug-test program has netted limited results so far, leading the police unions to renew their call to scrap the costly and invasive screenings in favor of the traditional urine exam.

JOHN F. DRISCOLL: Can't justify new procedure.

According to the Police Department, only seven officers failed hair drug tests from Jan. 1 through July 31. That was a slight increase from the four officers who tested positive for illegal substances over that same period in 2005.

'Too Early to Evaluate'

The department plans to wait before assessing the program. "It's too early and we do not have enough facts to reach a valid conclusion," asserted Chief Michael Collins.

But John F. Driscoll, president of the Captains' Endowment Association, blasted that stance, arguing that the department would surely be touting the results of the new program if the number of officers testing positive increased.

"The greater expenditure and the greater invasion of privacy on our members are certainly not worth what I consider insignificant returns," he contended during an Oct. 19 phone interview.

MICHAEL J. PALLADINO: Questions delay in ruling.

The change to hair testing has been aimed at making it harder for officers to cheat than with the urine-based tests. The hair test doesn't require as much privacy as a urine screening, so there is no chance for workers to substitute someone else's sample for their own or slip in a fake substance.

The hair test also can detect drug use dating back three months. Standard urine tests only show illegal drug use within the previous day or two. The NYPD initially began testing the hair of candidates for the Police Academy before they are enrolled. The department calls 20 percent of the force each year for random urine tests. Police union officials have all stressed that they are against drug use in the department, but they contend that changing the testing procedure is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining that must be negotiated. "None of the unions want anyone using drugs," Mr. Driscoll said. "Our whole problem is they are unilaterally doing something that isn't what they claim."

Union Grievance

Last August, the police unions, led by the Detectives' Endowment Association, filed a grievance against the move. DEA President Michael J. Palladino said that the Board of Collective Bargaining issued an internal draft decision regarding the issue in May, but that ruling was "tabled" at the city's request.

"I think it would be safe to assume that the draft decision was probably favorable towards the unions' argument," Mr. Palladino remarked. "It definitely raises a little suspicion as to whether the playing field is level or not."

The BCB ruling has been held up by the March 28 Court of Appeals decision that found the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association's 48-hour rule and several other union contract provisions are not mandatory subjects of collective bargaining. That decision also concluded that under the City Charter, officer discipline is the exclusive province of the Police Commissioner.

"We've given the parties an opportunity to address the decision," said John Wirenius, the BCB's Deputy General Counsel. "The last of the submissions of the parties came in on Oct. 16."

'Not Disciplinary Issue'

The police unions are contending that the new drug testing program is a department policy and not a disciplinary issue. "The decision is irrelevant at this level," Mr. Palladino said, referring to the Court of Appeals decision.

The PBA, which has called for the disbanding of the Office of Collective Bargaining, last week charged that the drug-test grievance is further proof that the panel is biased.

"The city's ability to sit for months on an important Office of Collective Bargaining decision just reinforces our belief that unions will never get a fair shake from OCB, because it is simply an arm of the Mayor's Office of Labor Relations," PBA President Patrick J. Lynch said in a statement. Mr. Wirenius replied, "The decision will be issued after the board has an opportunity to thoroughly review all positions."

Critics of hair-testing have charged that it unfairly violates the privacy of union members who are bald or who have no body hair. In those cases, lab technicians remove pubic hair.

Experts Discount Bias

The unions have also claimed that dark-haired individuals, including African- Americans, are more likely to come up positive. Medical testing experts have cited scientific studies that have proven there are no statistical differences between different populations under the hair test.

Others contend that hair can be contaminated by exposure to illicit smoke at a party or a concert. It also can yield false positives among narcotics officers who are exposed to drugs by the nature of their activities on the streets.

The Bloomberg administration maintains that drug-testing is not a mandatory subject of bargaining, which enables the NYPD to modify its screening procedures regardless of union opposition.

The NYPD has used hair testing for nearly a decade for recruits and officers under suspicion to supplement its urine screenings. In 2004, Paul J. Browne, the NYPD's chief spokesman, said that hair tests are worth the added cost: about $60 for a hair test, compared to $10.50 for a urine test.

'Patently Ridiculous'

But Mr. Driscoll suggested the money could be better spent to increase officers' salaries, and called the hair tests "patently ridiculous." He pointed out that John LaRose, the union's vice president, had his leg cut twice during the screening this year. "He's follicly impaired," Mr. Driscoll said. "They cut him on his leg, and he isn't the only one."

Mr. Palladino said that dozens of his members have complained about the same problem. "They are getting nicked and cut," he remarked. "If people get injured, we are documenting it by having them fill out line of duty injury forms."

He added, "The OCB delaying the decision is just further denying the union's due process."