Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site bu-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!bu-cs!bzs
From: bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: net.jobs
Subject: Drug Testing
Message-ID: <263@bu-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Mar-86 16:59:39 EST
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.263
Posted: Fri Mar 14 16:59:39 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 22:49:04 EST
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.
Lines: 59


Ok, I'll throw my 2c in. The first thing that always of course needs to
be made clear is that to oppose things like urinalysis by employers is
not equivalent to condoning drug use, as much as proponents like to
cast a wry smile and say "yeah, sure pal".

There was a recent article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists which
I would like to paraphrase and relate to this. The basic thesis was that
there is a vigorous effort in this country to shift certain problems into
morally righteous issues. An example they give is Reagan's attempt to
involve the military in suppressing drug smuggling. His reasoning was
(according to the article, I don't have primary sources) that drugs being
smuggled across our border indicates insecure borders, that our national
territoriality is being violated, and securing those borders, being a
national security issue, is within the purvue of the military. Similar
reasoning in regards illegal aliens.

Similarly, one can see a shift on this issue at hand from the drug pusher
to the drug user, the reasoning is that job performance and hence both
national productivity (the selfish interest of the govt to allow this
testing to be done) and the rights of the employer (the altruistic interest
of the govt to allow this testing to be done) are at stake.

The problem in this case is that rather than reviewing an employee's
productivity based upon expectations, this is allowing the employer
to presume guilt and test the employee on the basis that whatever the
employees performance is it 'could' have been better, or perhaps as
a predictor of the employee's inevitable (?) degeneration a priori.

This is questionable. It smacks (excuse the pun) of locking someone away
because the appear to be a 'criminal' type, or are likely to commit a
crime (only auto-insurance companies are allowed to do this sort of thing :-)
It is clear that the employer's interest here IS IN NO WAY the fact that
the employee might be committing a crime off-hours as the intention is
simply to fire the employee, not accuse them of a crime and allow them
their day in court.

I think if I had an employer who tried to subject me to drug testing I
would get a lawyer and ask them first to sign a document that would
state something like:

	a) If they find evidence that would lead them to my dismissal,
	the must also file a criminal complaint against me and commit
	themselves to serving as a witness on the state's behalf.

	b) That they understand that depending upon the outcome of that
	criminal case, if I were found innocent by a court of law not
	only would I have the choice of being re-instated, but they
	would be liable to all guaranteed rights by me to pursue
	remuneration for wrongful accusation. If I were found guilty
	then obviously the loss of the job and the sentance imposed
	upon me by the court would be my burden to bear.

The problem with this testing thing is that there is no risk on the part
of the employer for their invasion of rights and accusations (and damage.)

It should be there.

	-Barry Shein, Boston University