Just a few quick comments:
Maybe I have a different outlook on this since with the exception of my
first job and my current job, I have submitted to a drug test prior to
employment every time. And I have had false positives on these tests, so i
do understand how that can be difficult to explain. But in most cases I
was given the oppportunity to explain, and in the one case that stands out
where the company didn't give me a chance to explain, my best friend got
the job and quit in three days. Sometimes drugs tests give the employee a
better glimpse into the company.
1) Some positions in museums deal intensively with the public, and I know
that I can tell when some one uses drugs, and I do not do business with
any company that allows its customers (or potential donors in the case of
charities) to have to deal with people who are not truely interested in
their job or their duties. Other positions deal with children, and I do
not think that any drug user is a positive role model. As such, I would
not want to have my nephew influenced by a drug user. Now the problem with
this is that if only educators or development officers are required to
take a drug test its discrimination.
2) And as far as your pregnancy tests, monday alcohol tests, and smoking
tests, this is a blatent slippery slope argument! The same type of
argument that is used in keeping the drinking age at 21, used in raising
the minimum age for a driver's license, and countless other impractical
and outright illogical proposals. I realize the world is neither logical
nor practical, but with arguments like this you will not convince the
majority of people.
3) I agree random drug tests for current employees are entirely different
from drug tests as a prerequiste for employment. Random drug tests are
less common, and are not truely effective. Numerous companies have
realized this and do not use them. However, Testing prior to employment is
not a bad thing, I would (and have) taken drug tests prior to employment.
I think these tests are good. Mainly because I do not want to work with
drug users, but also because the employer has a right to know if the
person in the interview is really the person who will be at work.
Just some thoughts, Kristina
On Wed, 12 May 1999, Angela Putney wrote:
>I completely understand the points you are making, Shannon, and for certain
>jobs I can see the need (perhaps police, firefighter, EMT worker, etc.)
>but working in a museum is not one of them. I have several problems with
>And after they start all of this drug testing and you accept it, what
>will they do next? Test everyone for pregnancy (test the men too, can't
>discriminate that way) and fire (or not hire) those who come up positive
>since they are going to lose productivity for several months, probably
>take an extended leave of absence, cost us money in terms of healthcare,
>and not be sleeping well when they return? How about test everyone on
>Monday mornings for alcohol in the blood stream because if they drink on
>the weekends, they will probably drink other nights, eventually become an
>alcoholic, then be non-productive, etc. Hey, how about smokers? They will
>all get cancer, become less productive, require lots of healthcare
>benefits, etc. This may sound crazy to you, but worse has happened in the
>recent history of the world and country.
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://museums.state.nm.us/nmmnh/museum-l.html. You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
