On Thu, 15 Dec 1994, <Bruce Rieber> wrote:
 
> The police can, however, set up roadblocks to randomly determine if
> people are driving under the influence.   The difference I see is that
> people driving under the influence are in a potentially lethal weapon.
> I don't know if the same can be said for museum employees.
 
I think we've played the issue of safety in a museum to an end.
 
Perhaps if we looked for commonality, rather than differences, we
would find that, in both circumstances, we have given up our rights for
the greater good. (that, of course, is arguable.  I'm not going to argue
it.)
 
Still another way to see this is through the expression "your right to
swing your fist ends at my nose!"  Rights of some must be tempered by the
rights of others.
 
The central question, as I see it, is whether or not our employers have
rights in this matter.
 
Again, I'm not arguing for testing.  It appears an ugly way to do business,
to me.
 
Perhaps if we had more than just this little "bomb scare" to
discuss, we could reach some conclusions.  Which institution proposes
this onerous testing?  Are others propsing the same thing?  If so, how
many others?  What are the reasons being given at the institution(s)
who are proposing to test?
 
I'm beginning to wonder if we're being Spammed, here.  Big uproar, no
details, scary stuff!
 
The Redcoats are coming, the Redcoats are coming.  (kerplop kerplop,
sounds of horse riding away.)
 
Specifics, anyone?
 
David Laro