Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.jobs
Subject: Re: Urinalysis...Lie Detectors...all the new rage?
Message-ID: <5127@alice.uUCp>
Date: Mon, 17-Mar-86 11:06:42 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.5127
Posted: Mon Mar 17 11:06:42 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Mar-86 07:23:59 EST
References: <2581@pixar.pixar>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 19

There seems to be a lot of talk these days suggesting that employers
should test their employees for drug use.  The most common justification
is that employees who use drugs have their performance impaired, and
an employer has a right to get rid of someone who isn't as alert
as might be.

Either the people who claim this are telling the truth or not.

If they are -- which means employers can sack people who aren't up to
par -- I can see no argument against sacking people who don't get
enough sleep, or are upset about problems with friends or family,
or who don't eat right, or smoke, or don't drive carefully.

This thought scares the living daylights out of me.

On the other hand, they could be lying.  If so, their real motive
must be something even less palatable, else why not tell the truth?

This thought also scares the living daylights out of me.