Carol Alexandra Ely <[log in to unmask]> asked:
> Do any museum professional organizations take any kind of stand
> on this?
 
I would also be interested in whether our professional organizations
have taken a stand. It wasn't that long ago (turn of the century?)
when a teacher (generally all women) could be fired for dating or
for smoking (tobacco). That is now considered an unacceptable
intrusion into personal lives. So where do you draw the line? At
any illegal activity? Many states still have laws making homosexual
contact illegal. Are we going to allow people to be fired for this?
What if the "evidence" was gained by unconstitutional means?
 
> Would Williamsburg employees like support in refusing,
> or are people just accepting it?
Let us know. I would certainly lend support. What could we do - boycott?
 
Dean DeBolt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It is my understanding that mandatory drug testing is used heavily in
> organizations and companies dependent on interaction with the public
> (amusement/entertainment industry) or in situations where a drug user
> could place others at risk ...
 
One problem with this is that the service sector of the economy and
much of government involve "interaction with the public". Those sectors
now make up over a third of the economy and growing. I think a more
relevant issue is how an employee in fact handles that interaction.
If he/she had too much Scotch (again legal, for now anyway), he/she
could cause just as many problems. For that matter, if he/she just
has a personality that doesn't handle the interaction well, it could
be trouble. But do we want people losing jobs for some a priori
judgement or only after some action on the job that is grounds for
dismissal? Remember that urine tests are positive many days after a
substance was used and long after any behavioral trace is discernable.
If prohibition of alcohol were to be reinstated, should you be fired
for the trace of the one Scotch you had a week ago Friday?
 
DOUGLAS TILGHMAN <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> ....                          I oppose mandatory drug testing, except
> when there is an extremely valid, compelling reason for it.  Such
> reasons include the operation of equipment or machinery that requires
> full motor reflex control, which could be hampered by the use of
> illegal drugs...
 
The problem with this argument is again that what is being tested
is not levels that have been proven to impair reflexes or judgement
but only trace levels. These traces may be the residue of weekend use
that did not and do not affect job performance.
 
I think that the bottom line question we ought to ask before we tamper
with someone's livelihood is whether this is in any way necessary or
proper? Isn't it likely that if it is really a matter of abuse not use,
whether the substance is legal or not, then there will be some behavior
that constitutes proper grounds?
Dave Carroll - [log in to unmask]
* Standard disclaimer - these are my opinions, not org'l.positions