Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!mordor!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!SRI-NIC.ARPA!SAPPHO
From: SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: drug testing
Message-ID: <12243192627.18.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Tue, 30-Sep-86 21:45:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: RED.12243192627.18.MCGREW
Posted: Tue Sep 30 21:45:45 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 2-Oct-86 20:36:26 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 32
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


I'm with Keith on this one.  I see no reason why it would be harder to
persuade companies not to do drug testing by organizing employees
privately to refuse than by getting the government to pass a law
against it.  And the alternatives to leaving the choice up to private
agreements between employers and employees all seem bad to me.

1.  Government bans any kind of drug testing by employers.  This means
employers can't even use a reliable test, if one should be invented,
for employees using dangerous equipment, to keep those employees from
working drunk or high and risking people's lives.  It seems to me that
they should be free to do this.

2.  The government could enumerate unreliable tests, which it would
ban (so people couldn't not be hired on such weak evidence).  Then
someone could come up with another unreliable test, which employers
would use.

3.  The government could enumerate jobs it considers critical enough
to public safety to allow the employers to do drug testing.  But the
government knows much less about whose safety is involved than the
people working in the industry, so why should it make the decision?

4.  The law says "jobs critical to public safety" without being
specific.  Then employers go ahead and make decisions they honestly
believe are legal under this vague definition, and some judge
overrules them.

Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
-------
-------