U.S.  CONSIDERS DRUG SCREENINGS THAT TEST SWEAT, SALIVA AND HAIR

Many workers may no longer need a cup to demonstrate to employers that they aren't using illegal drugs.

Last week, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, part of the U.S.  Department of Health and Human Services, announced the proposal of a new rule that would allow federal agencies to use sweat, saliva and hair in federal drug-testing programs that now test only urine.

A final plan on the new procedures could be issued by the end of the year for 1.6 million federal workers.  About 400,000 federal workers who have security clearances, carry firearms, deal with public safety or national security or are presidential appointees are tested for drugs when they apply for jobs; other federal employees are tested if they show signs of drug use or are involved in a work-related accident.

Experts say there is a very good chance that many companies besides defense contractors and transportation concerns could follow suit if the new procedures go into effect.  Many big companies, such as Home Depot Inc.  and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., have extensive drug-testing programs and test thousands of workers each year.  Most companies say it is too soon to say just how their own testing programs might change.

The American Management Association found that 67% of big companies tested employees or job applicants for illegal substances in 2001, the last time it surveyed employers on the topic.  Roughly 60% of companies tested new hires.  Tests typically screen for drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, heroin and other opiates.

Many drug-testing companies are eager for the new business they expect to get from the government as well as from corporations.  "This opens up a whole new arena for us," says Roger Dietch, chief executive of Global Detection & Reporting Inc., New York.  The company tests for the presence of illegal drugs that are secreted by the skin.  As a sign of the wider trend in adopting new testing methods, Mr.  Dietch says the company will announce a deal to provide testing for a national retailer this week.

Many employee and privacy-rights groups have expressed concern about the proposed changes.  "There's no benefit from this," says Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, in Princeton, N.J.  Mr.  Maltby says he receives complaints "every day" from people who say they have failed a drug test but have never done drugs.  "It is just going to increase the number of people who are going to lose their jobs who never did drugs," he says.

What can workers do about new procedures that may come their way?

In most cases, workers have few legal options if they fail a drug test, which can be cause for termination.  If it can be shown that a company carried out a drug-testing policy unfairly, by discriminating against a certain group of workers, or if testing was part of a retaliatory measure against an employee, then a lawsuit against a company has a greater chance of success, according to Tim Willoughby, an employment lawyer in St.  Louis.

Yet, he says, "people who've tested dirty don't make attractive plaintiffs.  If you've been falsely accused, you've got to show me that you're clean." A case is more credible if an employee who tests negative for drugs in subsequent tests can also show that an employer refused to let him or her retake a test while allowing others that option, or if numerous other employees had similar problems with the employer.

Mr.  Maltby advises people to ask a prospective employer about its drug-testing policy, especially before giving up a permanent position at a current job.  He also recommends asking if the laboratory used by the company has been certified by the Department of Health and Human Services.  "You can say, 'I've read about false positives in drug tests,' " he says.  "In general, if you ask the question in an appropriate manner, you shouldn't get a negative reaction."

If you know that your test results must be incorrect, ask to retake the test.  Mr.  Willoughby even advises anxious workers to visit a doctor and have a blood sample drawn to provide a backup test, which can cost several hundred dollars.  "That is such a wonderful insurance policy," he says.

Workers should also be aware that the Americans with Disabilities Act makes it illegal for an employer to test a prospective employee without first making a conditional offer of employment.  The ADA also prohibits employers from discriminating against candidates on the basis of past substance abuse.  In general, employers aren't permitted to inquire about a candidate's medical history until after a job offer has been made.

Many people advise employees who have a drug problem to step forward prior to testing.  "Their options are always better if they reach out for treatment on their own," says Kenneth Collins, a consultant in Orinda, Calif., who works with companies on issues of mental health and substance abuse in the workplace.  "They can keep it confidential, and they don't have to put their job at risk," he says.