Brett Charbeneau <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>       Next month, the institution where I am employed will be
> implementing a mandatory drug-testing policy for all employees.
> There are concerns among the staff here about the accuracy of the
> technology to be used.
I would hope that in an institution supposedly connected to US History
that there would be many more concerns, for example concerns about why
the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to our Constitution as well as the
right of privacy recognized in a variety of contexts have mysteriously
disappeared. If my house cannot legally be searched without a warrant
only to be granted for probable cause, why does an employer have any
right to search my body just because they feel like it? If I am forced
to participate in this, what happened to my right not to be compelled
potentially to incriminate myself?
I guess my most basic question is what is the justification given for
this trampling of rights? If an employee at Colonial Williamsburg used
illegal drugs while off-duty and traces are still apparent in urine,
what is the risk? he/she will give a zany interpretation of history?
If this policy applies to all employees, we're not talking just about
people who are performing badly or strangely on the job but about
employees who are doing a good job at what they are being paid to do.
 
> ...                    Do any of the subscribers to this list
> already have similar programs in place at their institutions, and
> can they comment on how they are working?
I would also be interested to learn how many institutions have tried
to commit such outrages and, more usefully, what steps have been
taken to prevent these abuses.
 
>       The policy consists of an initial test for the presence of
> illegal drugs in urine ...        These results will then be reviewed
> by a Medical Review Officer (MRO) who will determine whether
> there is a legitimate medical or other explanation for the positive
> result.  The decision of the MRO will be final.
This procedure sounds degrading and thoroughly arbitrary. The poster also
included a lengthy list of reasons why "false positives" might result.
Those are all grounds for concern, but in addition to these what about
the concept that what I do on my own time is my own damned business?
 
>       Employees who refuse to submit to the drug testing,
> adulterate specimens or otherwise interfere with the testing
> process, or refuse to enter and complete an approved
> rehabilitation program will be terminated as a voluntary quit.
I see nothing voluntary about being thrown out of a job because
you happen to believe you are still a free American. That phrase
"approved rehabilitation program" sounds a bit like the political
re-education camps that the Vietnamese used so effectively.
This trend has gone far enough and ought to be brought to a halt
right now. As Nancy Reagan used to say, Just Say No.
I will be very interested what others on this list think about
this issue.
*    Dave Carroll
*    [log in to unmask]     (or if path problems ...
*    [log in to unmask]
*
*    These opinions are mine and not my employer's. I encourage all
*    who believe in freedom to share them.