MUSEUM-L Archives

Museum discussion list

MUSEUM-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 14 Dec 1994 14:31:39 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (41 lines)
On Wed, 14 Dec 1994, Raymond Craig Sanders wrote:
 
> Another reader of this list has suggested that an employer
> may be interested in the results of drug tests as a way of
> discouraging behavior that is not conducive to good work
> (noat exactly what he said, perhaps, and he avoided condoning
> this interest).  It seems to me that any such employer should
> restrict itself to objective evaluation of job performance
> and strictly avoid concerning itself with private practices
> of its employees that might affect their performance.  If they
> are doing a satisfactory job, the employer has no complaint.
> There are innumerable aspects of a persons private life that
> might affect job performance (Do we get enough sleep?  Is our
> emotional life in turmoil?) and few of us would be willing to
> allow our employers to start inquiring into such matters and
> setting up a regimen for us to follow at home.  The question is
> larger than the drug issue--it comes down to our right (if such
> it is) to insist that good performance is good performance, and
> that is all our employer should be able to ask.  It may not be
> this simple if we are (say) commercial pilots, of course.
 
Craig, nothing is ever as simple as it appears.  The often repeated
opinion that what we do on our own times is none of our employer's
business flies in the face of practical reality.  Our employers, whether
museums or related institutions, frequently rely on the financial support
of the community, granting agencies, foundations, etc.
 
So, tell me, when an independent employee who does his job suddenly
appears in the news media as "drug suspect,"  "pornographer," "pedophile"
or something equally sinister, and said employee becomes identified with
"the institution"  do you still feel it is none of the institutional
"business?"
 
Nope, I'm afraid I disagree with that.  I agree that violations of our
constitutional rights are serious, but our employers have rights, too.
 
Somewhere, this simple problem may have a solution, but it is not in
playing "ostrich."
 
David LaRo

ATOM RSS1 RSS2