Conference 7.286::digital

        I hope that DEC does not start a drug testing program. 
 
        I don't like most testing programs.  My biggest problem with
        these programs is that they usually ignore the drug that is
        responsible for the majority of the drug related problems:
        alcohol. 
        
        Bloom County did a parody of these tests in a recent Sunday
        comic strip:  Berke Breathed was recommended for execution
        as an addict because he ate a marijuana brownie six years ago
        while the bureaucrat that ran the tests was judged `clean'
        despite the fact that he lived on alcohol. That is obviously
        an exaggeration, but testing for marijuana and not alcohol
        is an establishment prejudice that I hope DEC does not follow. 
        
        The next largest problem with drug testing programs is that
        they only test for the use of the drugs, they don't determine
        if the drug use has any effect on the subject's ability to
        perform their job.
        
        					B.J.

    	Now THIS topic deserves its{own note (-1)
    

    Anyone who told me to take a drug test would have to wring out the
    test sample from his clothes.

    In a recent article about drug testing in the Nashua Telegraph, (that
    bastion of truth and credibility) a DEC personnel person was quoted as
    saying point blank that DEC had NO plans to institute drug testing.  A
    few other local companies waffled:  Sanders said that they were
    "studying" the issue, for example. 
    
    I suggest that someone look up the article, get the person's name and
    contact her so that we can squelch this rumor with hard facts. 
    I believe it was from either last Sunday or the Sunday before.

    Burns
    

    
      I for one cannot see a basis for such a policy, unless of course
    someone has been injured or has done some uncorrectable harm to
    the company or it's equipment while on the influence of drugs.
       If such a policy was implemented, the testing must include testing
    for alcohol or it would be a contradiction. I cannot see this policy
    being brought into corprate policy. However if it is, I'm not worried.
    
                              Pete

    And also test for caffeine, nicotine, steroids .....
    
    - michael

re .-1 (-: I liked that :-)

If you...
	test positive on nicotine, DEC'll relocate your office, ...

	test negative on caffiene, DEC'll give you a coffee cup, ...

	test either way on steroids, DEC'll give you an even mushier keyboard!

    ... that certain non-prescription drugs you can buy will cause you
    test positive for other illegal ones?
    
    Yep, Advil and Nuprin, both of which contain ibuprofin(sp?) will
    make you look like a druggie.  I find this VERY concerning as during
    several portions of the year, I have to take more aprin/tylenol/nuprin
    that most would take in a lifetime due to a very bad allergy induced
    sinus condition.  
    
    Would I be able to survive without it?  Not sure.
    
    Would such a policy be a hassle?  You bet.  But at least I understand
    why.  I wonder how many people would test positive for certain drugs
    (because of taking ibuprofin) and have no idea why.  Ibuprofin is also
    very commonly used by people with arthritus. 
                                      
    - M

    Wow, this is WILD!  I can't believe this actually happens in our
    country much less here at DEC!  In reading a general article about
    this sort of thing a few weeks ago, it was noted that marijuana
    takes two months to clear completely from the blood, (or urine,
    or earwax or bellybutton lint or whatever they decide to examine!).
    It didn't say how much had to be in the blood to start with tho...
    
    If DEC did decide to invade the private lives of each and every employee,
    (below the level of the decision makers, of COURSE!), I wonder if
    they WOULD give advance notice.  I wonder if this "rumour" itself is
    "advance notice".  But wouldn't advance notice be self-defeating?
    Anyone on a witch hunt certainly wants to end up with a few witches
    to burn!  
    
    And I'm with the previous noters who feel if they're going
    to test for drugs, then they ought to test for DRUGS.  All of them.
    Caffeine, Sine-Aid, Dristan, Prednisone, Hydrochlorothiazide, ethanol,
    (ESPECIALLY ethanol), etc.  But my feeling is they're really testing
    lifestyles.  This is America?  "Yes, we like THESE drugs, but we don't
    like THOSE drugs so let's just see where YOU fit in!"  And then
    they shove a large platter of Hostess Twinkies under your nose.
    Grab 'em and "AHA! a marijuana user!"  Refuse 'em, and "AHA a cocaine
    addict!".
    
    Excuse the exaggeration but the hypocrisy of this type of thing
    slays me.  I suggest we all patrol the cafeterias in the morning
    and see who downs the juices and LARGE cups of milk or pays with
    trembling hands.  Then we'll know who's been out drinking the night
    before.  How about the nicotine addict who rants and raves in the
    office cuz the nearest butt machine is broken, or they're trying to quit
    or...  well, you get the picture.  Drugs aren't the issue.  Fitting
    in is the issue. Doing the RIGHT drugs is the issue.
    
    Of course don't let MY ranting and raving here be misconstrued as
    fear...  I mean I have nothing to worry about - I drink DECAF!!!!!
    
                           0   0
                             ^
                            \ /
                            
                                                    Sandy

    Re: .9
    
    >    It didn't say how much had to be in the blood to start with tho...

    And therein lies the biggest problem with the tests currently in
    use today. There are two tests; a $5 dye test kit used by a
    non-professional that serves as a screening test (and often the
    only test, but that's another topic) and a spectrum analysis test
    done at a lab for about $80. The catch is that neither of the tests
    will indicate the amount of drug taken at the time of use or the amount
    of time the drug has been in the system. So there will be no difference
    between someone who smoked one joint at a weekend party three weeks
    ago and the guy who comes to work stoned everyday.
    
    I have also read where the US Army (they test everyone all the time)
    EXPECTS a one percent error rate in the testing. The army performs
    more than 5 million tests per year so that's 50,000 people in jeopardy
    of loosing there jobs, or worse being court marshaled and jailed,
    because of an "insignificant error". BTW - many experts believe
    that the error rate is closer to 20 percent but that the army is
    pretty good about retesting positive results.

    BTW - not that we will ever need this but... The current tests can
    be beaten by adding salt and/or water to the urine sample. 
    
    Source for all of the above was the "Syracuse New Times" for the
    week of May 28th.

    
    Paul.

re: The army performs more than 5 million tests per year...

Paul,

There's something wrong with that number, unless the Army is testing
everyone in the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines at least twice a
year.

/john

    I can't believe the paranoia being shown in this topic!  No one--not
    ONE SINGLE REPLY here--has substantiated the rumor or given even the
    slightest indication that there will be drug testing at DEC.  Not even
    the base note!  There is even some evidence to the contrary!  And yet
    .-2 says ~"I can't believe this is happening...at DEC".  IT'S NOT! If
    it were, I would be upset.  But IT'S NOT!  CALM DOWN! 
    
    Burns
    

    Of course it's a nasty rumor.
    
    However, just in case anybody should know of anyone who needs help,
    I would like to point out that the Massachusetts Civil Liberties
    Union, and its parent the ACLU, take considerable interest in this
    issue, and should be contacted if necessary.  The most recent issue
    of their newsletter, THE DOCKET, contained an article on urinalysis.
    
    Pat Hardy
    

    Calm down?  Just relax and wait for it to happen?  If rumor becomes
    reality, and I agree it's only an IF, then it will be too late.
     IF this gets implemented, it will have already been decided how
    to deal with your protests.  Collecting information and other peoples'
    feelings on the subject will be too slow and too late to do any
    good then.  I say we begin protecting ourselves against the POSSIBILITY
    by educating ourselves about the subject.  It's not nervous nellie
    reactionary panic, it's simply being smart enough to protect yourself
    against what may happen.  And since "protection" at this stage only
    involves knowledge and information gathering, I say why the heck
    not?  Running out and hiring a lawyer would be a little pre-mature
    but I don't think it's EVER too early to learn about something -
    particularly something that may affect all of us.  I wouldn't wait
    until I had cancer to learn about it - I want to know NOW how I
    can protect myself against the possibility.
    
    Keep writing!
    
    Sandy

    This is beginning to sound like Soapbox.
    
    I agree with Jim Burrows and Burns Fisher, doubtless others too,
    that there's been a bit much negative thinking in this conference
    lately.
    
  --Simon (not speaking as the moderator)
    

        Yeah, and tomorrow the x's may decide to shoot all women on
    sight, so I'd better start gathering information on them right away!
    
        Really!
    
        I think this is classic paranoidal thinking.  (Well, they might
    be out to get me!)  Must be awfully wearing having to live your
    life with an eye out for who's gonna "get" you next.  You can waste
    your life away worrying about what might happen.
        
    tlh
    
    PS.	I'm afraid I have no sympathy for those who indulge in drugs
    and then don't want to pay the price.  (I'm not well known for keeping
    to the speed limit but I don't bitch about my rights being violated
    when I get caught by radar.  I take my chances, I pay the price.
    If I really want to avoid a ticket, I won't speed.)  I'll debate
    false positives ONLY when there if we get word that testing will
    take place.
                              
    

Re .16:  Tracey, you overplay the role.  :^)  Just for the record, we
civil libertarians call it "vigilance".

I didn't hear any requests for sympathy.  None of the respondents here 
seem to be looking to escape paying a "price".  I reckon, from the tone,
that a few of them are engineers, who as a class have always been notorious
critics of mickeymouse.   If a manager sees that a subordinate's work
is falling off, he or she must address that employee, and deal with it, 
rather than hiding in an office and hoping that some chemical witch-finding 
test will do their job for them.   Bottom line.

The Corporation, by policy, treats people according to their merit, and I
do NOT expect this to change.

Pat Hardy

    Thanx, Pat for coming to my rescue!  I don't think I'm paranoid,
    and I don't live my life looking for someone who may be out to get
    me.  I don't think my comments constitute a desire to do drugs and
    not pay the price.  
    
    To use Tracey's parallel, if she were to exceed the speed limit, she 
    wouldn't gripe about getting a ticket, but I'd bet she'd gripe plenty 
    if the local blues decided to "test" all cars, (if there were a way 
    they could), to see if they'd ever been driven over 55 and if so,
    "punish" the owner.  THAT's the right parallel.  The issue isn't
    whether she speeds or I do drugs, but that our *choice* to do so
    is inhibited - choices that we may make fully prepared to accept
    the consequences as we knew them to be!
    
    A corporate invasion of their private life is far beyond the
    consequences someone accepts when he/she chooses to smoke a joint at
    a party.  Breaking the law, (and for perspective here, in this state
    engaging in oral sex makes you a lawbreaker!), does NOT make you
    vulnerable for anything anybody now wants to subject you to.  You
    do not relinquish your basic rights as guaranteed by our constitution
    because you drove too fast, smoked a joint or got head.  
    
    This erosion of the fundamentals of democracy is a pet peeve with
    me and THAT's what I'm attacking.  Think of the seat belt law. 
    Think of road blocks.  Our loss of personal freedom is subtle and
    insidious and every seeming inocuous event serves to lull us into
    gradually increasing acceptance of loss of our right to privacy. 
    
    And for the record, I am NOT worried about the outcome of a drug
    test - I'm outraged that someone has the audacity to try and exert 
    that kind of control on my life. 
         
    Ever vigilant,
    
    Sandy

	The real question is, does an employer have the right (or, some
	might even say, the responsibility) to try to identify employees
	who engage in illegal activities? That's a question better
	addressed in FORUM (as a matter of fact, drug testing was
	discussed there recently).
	
	Mike

    I have been around this company for 8 years, admittedly a much shorter
    period of time than some of you.  I have seen many, many changes,
    and strongly disagreed with a lot of them.
    
    However...
    
    I do not believe for a minute that Digital would invade the private
    lives of its employees in the manner being discussed in this note. I'd
    have to see it happen before I'd believe it. 
    
    Am I terribly naive?

        I still think it's a waste of energy to get all het up about something
    in all likelihood is NOT going to happen.  Unless you can't afford
    to be under threat of the test for even one day (i.e. you've been
    doing drugs and don't want to pay the price), there's plenty of
    time to deal with the threat WHEN IT BECOMES A THREAT, instead chasing
    shadows. 
    
        And oh by the way, you lose that bet.  What's the difference
    in testing the car to see if it's been driven too fast (while I
    owned it anyway) and catching my by radar?  They are both proof
    that I broke the law (Assuming of course that this hypothetical
    car test existed).  As for inhibiting our personal choice in the
    matter.... HUH?  I didn't quite catch that.  You're saying that
    laws and enforcement of them shouldn't discourage people from doing
    illegal things?  I kinda thought that was the whole point.  
    
        Actually I think Mike hit it on the head when he said the real
    question is whether or not it's an employer's business to do this
    testing.  When the employee's work suffers is when the company should
    worry.  (I mean it's not like somebody's going to go out in a drug
    induced frenzy and program someone to death and we have to catch
    them before it happens.)
    
       Your statements about democracy and the American Way lead me to
    believe that think the old innocent until guilt holds some water
    with you.  All I'm saying is let's calm down, extend that principle
    to the management of DEC and not spread panic about such an
    unsubstantiated rumor.  The only word we've heard from management
    is that they WON'T be testing.  If you're truly concerned and want
    to vigilant and gathering data rather than rumor mongering and
    spreading panic, why don't you contact Corp. Personnel and ask them
    where they stand?  
    
    	I'm sorry if my notes on this subject have been argumentative.
    I'm really trying my hardest for them not to be.  I'm just SO tired
    of everyone always assuming the worst.  Give someone the benefit
    of the doubt every now and then  for heaven's sake!
    
    tlh

    
    Re: -1
    
    Yes I DO think that the right of "innocent until proven guilty"
    holds water!
    
    Regardinganother of your analogies, I dont think that DEC would
    punish me for a traffic ticket. Should they punish me for a similarly
    minor legal infraction... if it didnt affect my job performance?
    Cohabitation is illegal in many states, should DEC punish me for
    that infraction?
    
    I think the point is moot as : a) I dont think DEC would do such
    a thing.
    
    	b) In the long term , I think the courts will prevail on the
    side of the populace. 
    
    	-Doing nothing stronger than a beer,
    
    	-John

    I tend to agree with .20.  I've only been with Digital for  about
    3  years,  but, with three degrees in Psychology and a good sixth
    sense about people and their organizations, I have a good feeling
    about  DEC.   (I tried to express a similar feeling in 111.204 or
    111.205 ... I'm not sure which.)  My three years here  have  been
    a  lot  more relaxed and pleasant than my 4 in Academia ... those
    people are crazy.
            
    Terry

Don't be so sure DEC wouldn't punish you for a traffic ticket, especially if
you somehow, possibly stupidly or unwittingly, involved DEC in that ticket.

Does drug testing prove that you have broken the law?
If we're going to have drug testing, shouldn't we have other forms of
testing, too, for illegal sexual activity, maybe?

What about states where consumption of, for example, marijuana, is
legal?  What about employees who have visited those states?

What if DEC has data that says that you have drugs in your system and
chooses not to do anything?  What if the legal authorities want to see
data that DEC has collected?

I think there are issues here DEC wouldn't want to get involved with,
and I don't believe we're going to see drug testing.

/john

    "Don't be so sure DEC wouldn't punish you for a traffic ticket, ..."

    Uh, John, I don't know of anyone who got into trouble for _getting_
    a ticket.  What one does with a ticket is something else again.
    
  --Simon
    

1) All evidence (including the Nashua Telegraph article, which I saw too) 
indicates that DEC has no plans for drug testing.

2) That doesn't mean that it isn't reasonable to discuss drug testing in 
relation to DEC.

There is a lot of action happening in this area, and someday DEC may feel
pressure to institute drug testing.  Remember that many people at DEC deal
with hazardous equipment at our manufacturing plants; I don't find it
inconceivable that the insurance companies (or workman's compensation plans,
which are controlled by state and federal governments) would require some sort
of drug testing.  If workman's comp got involved, it would probably affect
everyone; I am currently receiving medical payments from workman's comp as a
result of spraining my ankle in the ZK01 parking lot. 

However, before this causes anyone to panic, remember there are different
kinds of drug testing programs.  The worse kind, and the kind that all the
stories I have seen about employees suing to get their jobs back are "you get
one test - if you fail, you are fired - you can't get another test, you can't
get an independent test - we don't care if you want to stop using drugs." I
can't imagine DEC ever adopting such a policy. 

A progressive sort of policy, as adopted by a number of companies, provides for
more than one test, and the results of those tests are treated as a indication
that a problem may exist, not a ground for firing.  If there is a reason for
false results, it can be determined.  The results of the testing can treated
confidentially.  Counseling is required, but you continue at your job unless
the drug use actually effects it.  This is the only kind of program I can
imagine DEC adopting.  DEC already offers such counseling on a voluntary
basis. 

Steve

Ahh Gi'day...

    I wonder  whether the company loses far more money from people smoking,
    or  drinking  coffee  at  work  than  a few heads getting into a coupla
    joints  over  the  weekend.  
    
    I've just spent half the day cleaning the cigarette ash out of an LK201
    keyboard that I've inherited. How many DEC machines need fixing because
    of coffee and/or ash down the keyboard?
    
			  {dennis{{{ -- Ex-smoker.

    re 127.24  John, in WHAT states is marijuana legal?????  This is
    new to me!
    
    Tracey, you don't sound argumentative.  I like people with fire
    in them.  That's what makes the notes files so interesting!  But
    you do admit that you wouldn't want to be held accountable if your
    car was "tested" and found "deviant" because there certainly could
    be extenuating circumstances.  You mentioned that maybe a previous
    owner could have exceeded the speed limit.  And you're right.  That's
    one of the reasons people don't want to be held accountable for
    the results of a drug test.  Too many variables to be conclusive.
    It just so happens that Dear Abby dealt with this issue just yesterday,
    and the reader's position was, and I'm paraphrasing, "So what's
    the big deal, Abby, if you're clean you've got nothing to worry
    about, right?"  Wereupon Abby said "WRONG!".  She stated that she
    was indeed "clean" but still felt it would be an infraction of her
    basic right to privacy.
    
    I believe too that Digital has faith in and respect for its employees
    but that other things may supersede that.  As a previous noter
    said, those "other things" are insurance companies.  I believe they
    were the driving force behind the seat belt law because medical
    claims cost them money.  We are legally bound to wear our seat belts
    to protect our insurance companies.  Bottom line.  If the law was
    institued out of a sincere desire to protect US, then why doesn't
    that desire deal with our number one killer, nicotine?  We can
    continue in our nicotine addiction  because that gives the state 
    government a good amount of tax revenue and so far, medical claims 
    from THAT haven't touched the insurance companies too badly yet.  
    
    The point is, that the powerful insurance companies may well insist 
    that Digital begin drug screening before they'll issue group coverage, 
    and if that happens, Digital's philosophy matters little.  Money
    talks.  What's the driving force behind the organizations that already
    DO employee drug screening?  Anyone know?
    
    Sandy

I believe that some amount of private use and consumption is legal in
Alaska.  Someone else will have to post things about other states.

Don't light up on my account; consult a lawyer first.
				/AHM

    Yes, "pot" possession and cultivation for *personal* use are
    legal in Alaska.  The state courts struck down the relevant
    laws as an invasion of privacy.  Quite a few more states are
    "decriminalized", where possession is treated as a ticketable
    civil offense.  This year the people in Oregon will be voting
    on the question of possession and cultivation for personal use.
    It's probably no accident that Tektronix, one of the larger
    high-tech companies in that state, discarded its drug testing
    program recently as a waste of time and a source of trouble.

    FORTUNE and other business magazines have stated that employee
    assistance programs appear to be the most successful means of
    salvaging employees with *real* problems, whatever the source.
    
    Should this discussion be moved to FORUM?
    
    Pat
    

    Where's FORUM  and why shouldn't this discussion continue here?
    
    Sandy
    

    
     The topic of Drug testing was discussed on Nightline last night.They
    had a lawyer, a consultant of the government on drug testing and
    Peter Uberof (sp?) on. The general consensus was (except for the
    baseball commisioner) that it should be for people who's job requires
    the utmost safety and that a treatment program should go along with
    it. This point seems logical to me. As the lawyer said, it is an
    enfringement of rights and it does say that your guilty until proven
    innocent which goes against this countries constitution.
    
                                  PC
    

    re: move to FORUM?
    
    No.  The network link to NY1MM is too sloooowwww!  I'm scads behind
    in reading it, and may give up.  Bad reason, perhaps, but you've
    got all these interesting conferences and a slow link!
    
    re: insurance co.
    
    Digital's medical carrier and small-claims liability carrier is
    Digital.  We self-insure quite a bit, so we aren't as pressured
    by insurance cos. as some other firms.
          fred

    RE: 127.31, 127.33:
    
    Only a suggestion.  It seemed that we were getting into issues
    which were not directly DIGITAL-related, and of more general scope.
    But the discussion is useful wherever.
    
    Pat
    

Two examples of legally driving your car faster than 55:

	1. Outside the United States.

	2. On a private road.

For these reasons testing a car to see if it had been driven faster than
55 wouldn't prove that a law had been broken.

/john

    FORUM is on NY1MM.  The note is 54, for discussion on drug testing
    in general, as opposed to the threat of it at Digital.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------   
    Examples of smoking marijuana legally:
    
    o   In Amsterdam
    o   In some parts of India
    o   In Alaska
    o   In Oregon, after the OMI referendum passes this fall!
    
    Note that Digital does business in all of those places, but one can
    fail an EMIT test up to 2 MONTHS after even getting NEAR someone
    smoking marijuana.  Yet another reason Digital would never do it.
    

        I still don't see the point in either worrying about drug
        testing at DEC or worrying other people about it. Face it, DEC
        says it isn't going to do it. Everybody in this discussion has
        said they don't believe DEC would ever willingly do it. The only
        scenario by which it could happen is if the insurance companies
        or the courts forced DEC to--in which case we couldn't do
        anything about it--and that doesn't appear to be at all likely.
        
        This is just another DUMB RUMOR, that isn't worth worrying about
        and which only hurts morale. If it were the only one going, it
        would be fairly harmless, but every time I turn around people
        are panicking and over-reacting. 
        
        JimB. 

    Moderator here.  As far as I'm concerned, there's no basis in this
    rumor.  Drug testing is not an issue at Digital, and discussion
    of this issue doesn't belong in this conference.  If that should
    ever change, then we'll discuss it.
    
    Meanwhile, NY1MM::FORUM is open for this kind of discussion.
    
  --Simon a.k.a. "Absentee Moderator"
    
    P.S.  I'm intentionally not setting this topic to /NOWRITE, but
    please consider this topic closed.