>I certainly did not hear a single compelling reason why this policy is
>being put into place now. There has been no major drug incident which has
>been revealed to us - just the fear of one. Colonial Williamsburg has had
 ...
>Dave
>
>David Harvey
 
Fear of one?  Or do your Powers That Be know something you don't?
 
No, I am absolutely NOT arguing FOR the mandatory drug testing.  If such
drug testing was not a condition of employment when you signed on ... well,
if I were a lawyer, that might be one angle I'd hit, and hit hard.
 
However, let me play devil's advocate, just for the hell of it, and spin
out a possible scenario.
 
It occurs to me that if I were Upper Admin and it had been brought to my
attention that, oh, say, and I'm just pulling something out of a hat, here,
that the housekeeping services (i.e. janitorial staff) or perhaps the
guards of my museum had people in it who were not just "doing" drugs but
SELLING them, perhaps even on museum grounds / property, and that the
situation had gotten to the point that "everyone knows" ... Would I
consider testing for drugs as one way to flush the miscreants into the
open?  Wellllll ... yes, I'd sure consider it.  Reluctantly.
 
But -- if I were to test ONLY that segment of my personnel, how could I
manage to make it seem acceptable?  The housekeeping staff / guards would
raise one hell of a fuss at being singled out.
 
And, worse, if that segment of my personnel should be predominantly, say,
of one racial or ethnic grouping?  (Impossible?  Not around here, it
ain't.)  Well, I'd not only have one hell of a fuss on my hands, I'd have
charges of racism to boot.
 
Thus: if I am to test at all and thus have a chance to defuse a problem
that might end up blowing up in my face (COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG A HUB OF
ILLEGAL DRUG ACTIVITY!  ARRESTS OF COSTUMED PERSONNEL WHILE TOURISTS WATCH
AND TAKE PICURES!  NEWS AND VIDEO AT SEVEN!), I might almost feel forced to
test the entire personnel.
 
Please don't flame me.  As I said, I'm merely playing devil's advocate.
But I'm wondering if there might be some unknown reason behind this rather
heinous move on CW's part.  Surely SOMETHING triggered it.
 
And, you Upper Admin types -- how might you decide to act, given various
possible scenarios?  It could well end up a damned if you do, damned if you
don't choice.  Which is the lesser of two evils?
 
In the overall picture, I'd say the embarrassment, which is only to my
organization, is the lesser evil, as opposed to the precedent of the
physical / medical equivalent of search and seizure without a warrant or
probable cause.  But would I end up losing my job because of my principled
stand?  And what would happen to me, then?  Principles don't pay the bills,
or feed and shelter my family ...
 
Frankly, I'd like to know a LOT more about what's actually going on in the
background, here.  What CW is proposing may not be RIGHT, but it just might
be UNDERSTANDABLE.
 
Mario Rups
[log in to unmask]