������Ƶ

Hawaii teachers may feel they were the losers when the state imposed a new contract July 1.

But in at least one area, it would seem they came out winners.

The teachers’ with the state has adopted a more traditional approach to drugs and alcohol — one widely used across the country.

The previous agreement, which entailed random drug testing of teachers, was extremely controversial. But it was never implemented. The Hawaii State Teachers Association and the Hawaii State Board of Education couldn’t settle on a practical, legal means for administering the random tests.

While the random testing provision was the first of its kind in the country, experts indicate that the new terms are similar to what is stipulated in labor agreements for most other teachers’ unions and state workers. They include testing after an employee comes under “reasonable suspicion” for drug or alcohol intoxication on the job.

Testing Only After “Reasonable Suspicion”

The “last, best and final” two-year offer — which Gov. Neil Abercrombie imposed without union approval — outlines the step-by-step process that occurs once a supervisor “reasonably” suspects a teacher of being impaired at school.

After coming under suspicion, the teacher is evaluated in an “impairment interview” with the supervisor and a witness. If the teacher admits to being impaired before the interview, he or she will not be disciplined but will be subject to random testing for up to one year and required to participate in a rehabilitation program.

If the teacher does not admit to but is determined to be under the influence, he or she must submit to testing at a “testing site.” (If the teacher declines testing, he or she will be fired.)

A positive test for alcohol gets the teacher a five-day suspension. The suspension for drugs is 15 days.

A second positive test amounts to 15-day and 30-day suspensions for alcohol and drugs, respectively. A third positive test obliges the teacher to resign voluntarily.

Following suspension, the teacher is placed on leave until he or she produces a negative test.

The teacher is allowed to return to the classroom after participating in a self-paid rehabilitation program, after which he or she will face random testing for as long as 60 months.

Random Drug Testing Rarely For Teachers

The random testing agreed to in the 2007 contract drifted in legal limbo until it was formally retracted from this year’s contract. Since then, a few other districts have at least broached the issue.

According to national experts in public education, random drug testing rarely emerges as an issue in collective bargaining for teachers.

“It’s not a common provision,” said Kathy Christie, chief of staff at the , a research institution devoted to developing public education policies at the state level. When asked whether there has been a movement toward more stringent drug testing policies in other states, Christie said she had “not sensed that whatsoever.”

“I haven’t really seen [random drug testing] in the contracts we’ve looked at,” agreed Emily Cohen, the district policy director at the . The council is also geared toward reforming teaching policies at the local and state level through research, including on in more than 100 school districts.

Contracts with explicit drug testing policies are much more common for unions that involve “moving the kids around,” such as school bus drivers, says Christie.

“Usually it’s when you physically have control of children,” she said.

Random drug testing policies are generally seen more in contracts for employees that are in charge of the safety of others, says Jodi Chai, a spokeswoman for the . HGEA is Hawaii’s largest union and encompasses a variety of fields divided into 13 collective bargaining units.

“Random drug testing is common for safety-sensitive positions,” said Chai, citing sheriffs and water safety officers as examples.

But Chai indicates it’s rarely a provision in contracts for other public state and county employees, such as HGEA nurses. HGEA nurses are subject to a “reasonable suspicion” policy only.

And so are nurses who work for the , the agency that oversees the state’s community hospitals.

Legal Battle Over Random Testing

Cohen and Christie said they weren’t surprised that random testing of teachers was both a bone of contention and at the heart of an ongoing legal dispute in Hawaii, which is the only state to encompass a single school district.

The issue has come up in of mainland districts, but the policy has never made it through the courts. Critics of the policy, such as the , say that it would be unconstitutional.

“Teachers are going to be leery” when it comes to drug testing contract terms, said Christie. “Drug testing would reflect things they did in their own time, their non-teaching hours. . . And especially because it’s different with Hawaii — there, if you make a local decision, you make a state decision.”

Indeed, the state and HSTA wrangled incessantly, though inconclusively, over random testing since the policy was introduced: both filed complaints with the and the HSTA unsuccessfully attempted to settle the issue in .

“Reasonable Suspicion” More Typical

“Reasonable suspicion” terms have been in place since 2007. But this contract is the first to specify how the policy is implemented.

Many school districts, such as Houston’s , have almost identical stipulations. Some states, like , have similar state-wide “reasonable suspicion” guidelines.

The state of Kentucky in 2006 enacted a that subjects teachers who have already been disciplined for drug impairment to random or periodic testing.

Some “reasonable suspicion” provisions, like those for Cypress-Fairbanks, Alabama and Kentucky, are fairly indefinite. Others are more much more detailed, like those diagramed in HSTA’s 2011 contract.

����ǰ����岹’s , for example, devotes seven contract pages to outlining its “reasonable suspicion” stipulations.

HHSC nurses who’ve failed drug or alcohol testing conducted under its policy are subsequently subject to “a ‘return to duty’ drug test prior to returning to work and any other follow-up tests,” according to Miles Takaaze, HHSC’s public affairs director.

Most HGEA employees’ contracts entail some type of “reasonable suspicion” policy, says Chai. Chai indicates that it has hardly been a contentious issue for any of the union’s bargaining units.

HGEA nurses were among the first public employees to see that kind of policy in their contract with the state, according to Chai, who says that it was implemented “a while ago.”

“It was introduced to the satisfaction of both parties,” she said. “And it’s worked.”

DISCUSSION What do you think about drug testing policies in labor contracts? Share your thoughts!