Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis
From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: drug testing
Message-ID: <3368@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Apr-86 19:03:03 EST
Article-I.D.: mnetor.3368
Posted: Wed Apr 23 19:03:03 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Apr-86 00:21:08 EST
References: <381@houligan.UUCP> <131@drutx.UUCP>
Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 43
Summary: 

In article <131@drutx.UUCP> sef@drutx.UUCP (FarleighSE) writes:
>
>>                                                              .....then
>>how about this: Employee embezzlement is said to be a major problem in
>>American society these days.  Why not give employers the right to come to
>>your house or apartment (or condo, or teepee, or whatever), and conduct a
>>full search, at any time?  Why not give them the right to fire you, put
>>nasty stuff into your records, and maybe have you imprisoned, if they
>>find a couple of company pencils or maybe a few sheets of stationary?
>>After all, those items do belong to them, and if you bring them home, that
>>constitutes premeditated theft.  Do you object?  If so, you must be a
>>criminal, because honest people would have nothing to fear.
>
>Back in about the 1930's the Ford Company did do just that!

IBM still has blood testing for VD as part of their pre-hire medical checkup 
procedures on new employees.  Watson Sr. was apparently a real nut on the
subject.  I wonder how many new-hires knew about that?  They won't tell you 
unless you ask (I did).  Though, according to the law here, it would be illegal
for IBM to be told the results of the test - it's supposed to be handled
by the MOH and/or your own physician if you test positive.

How many people realize that VD testing is routinely done on blood samples
taken for other purposes?  At least in Ontario it is now considered 
semi unethical for a doctor *not* to ask for VD screening results on people 
at risk (eg: women either pregnant or of child-bearing age, or people about 
to get married (though I know that VD screening is a legal requirement in 
some states for marriage)) in *addition* to the original purpose of 
drawing the blood.  Some labs do VD screening on almost *all* blood they
get for testing.

How come there isn't the same screaming and yelling about this?  Isn't this
an "invasion of privacy"?  Because VD isn't "illegal"?  Obviously, you 
haven't seen the VD statutes in this province!  (strictly speaking, having 
in Ontario VD isn't "illegal".  However, considering the reporting and 
treatment requirements, and the various fines/imprisonment available for 
punishing violators, it might as well be).  If only they'd consider AIDS
to be included under the same statutes - they're powerful enough for the
situation, and appear to be "acceptable" to the populace in general.
-- 
Chris Lewis,
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321