Drug and alcohol use, and sometimes abuse, does not always manifest
itself in weakened job performance.  The effects are highly individual.  If
we engage in discriminatory hiring based on a drug test, should we also be
giving psychological tests to look for symptoms of  depression social
nonconformity?  These can also inhibit job performance.  What about
complications due to AIDS or cancer?  Should we refuse to hire these people,
or fire them when their blood shows evidence of these conditions?
Fortunately, most of us don't.
        There is no way to know that we've hired the "perfect employee."
There is no way to guard against all catastrophes.  We can interview, check
references, etc., etc. before people are hired.  After they are hired, we can
monitor job performance and make decisions about whether to help employees
remediate difficulties as they emerge, or to let the employees go if we feel
we can't.  To me, these are the better choices; they facilitate trust and
mutual respect.  I believe that demanding body fluids from an employee, and
conducting an evaluation on them, is a violation of a person's body.  There
are less invasive ways to screen employees and to remediate problems.
        Mike Radice
        The Union Institute

=========================================================
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).