mcgurrin@MITRE.ARPA (08/20/86)
I am not on this mailing list, so I don't know what discussion may have proceeded this, but I am concerned about the current move to require mandatory, universal drug tests of gov't employees and defense contractor employees. I feel that this is a violation of basic rights on several grounds. I am interested in hearing from others who feel this way (or even from those who disagree). I am attempting to organize a letter writing and petition drive on this issue. The text of the petition reads, We, the undersigned, oppose mandatory drug tests, whether in government or private industry. We agree with the proponents of drug testing that drug use has no place in the work place, but this worthwhile goal does not justify violating basic rights of privacy or basic constitutional rights. We are opposed to testin of any persons where no justifiable suspicion or evidence of drug use exists. We urge state and federal legislators to enact legislation barring mandatory drug tests as a condition of employment. I would especially like to hear from anyone wishing to sign and/or help distribute the petition. Please reply directly to me via ARPANET or voice phone (703)-883-5581 (days). Thanks for your time. -------
kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/24/86)
From: mcgurrin@mitre.ARPA (Michael Mcgurrin)
... I am concerned about the current move to require mandatory,
universal drug tests of gov't employees and defense contractor
employees. I feel that this is a violation of basic rights on
several grounds.
I think employers do have the right to require such tests. The real
issues are:
1) Are the tests reliable? What recourse does a person have who tests
positive but who swears he takes no drugs?
2) Should government be allowed to require this of their contractors?
I work for a government contractor, so I am very much aware of the
loss of productivity and efficiency that is due to having to meet
various and contradictory government regulations.
3) Does this apply only to employees seeking a security clearance?
The government is allowed to ask many questions of people seeking a
clearance that employers are not allowed to ask employees. I think
this is a reasonable precaution to reduce the chances of espionage.
Yes, I do have such a clearance myself. No, I don't use drugs.
No, I have never taken a drug test, though my employer does now
require it of new employees.
I do not support your petition, because I believe that employers
have the right to set any rules they want for potential employees,
just as the potential employees have the right to set any rules they
want for their potential employers.
A company should have the right to not hire or to terminate anyone
for any reason, just as an employee has the right to not seek work at
a given place or to resign for any reason.
...Keith
-------SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA (10/01/86)
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 ------- -------
sappho@SRI-NIC.ARPA (10/11/86)
On second thought, I retract my objection to the government telling employers not to do drug testing. What I believe is that anyone (person or company) has the right to test people to see whether they are currently intoxicated before allowing them to operate dangerous machinery which they own. E.g., if I think my employee may be drunk, I shouldn't have to produce a whole lot of proof before I am allowed to give him or her a BAC test before allowing him or her to drive the company car. There is no inherent reason that I can see that the government couldn't allow that and not allow testing everyone to see whether they have used marijuana at any time in the past six months. I just don't expect a lot of common sense from the government on this issue in the near future, and I doubt there will be rampant drug testing unless they impose it. Lynn Gazis sappho@sri-nic ------- -------