Conference 7.286::digital

       I think you're confused. The cow wa on property we own in Lancaster
    and somehow got on Rte. 2. That's when the lady hit it.
                                                     Denny

    RE .1
    
    .2 IS RIGHT. The cow belonged to the previous land owner, who DEC
    let keep his cows on their property. The driver didn't work for
    DEC. After the cow's owner, our old beloved mayor, lost the law
    suit to the girl, he and the girl joined forces and sued DEC.
    
    DEC paid off to avoid the hassles.

    Did anyone check the deceased cow for drugs?
    
    /s/ Jim Williams

    I wonder if this rumor has anything to do with tomorrow's DVN
    broadcast, in which, according to the announcement, KO and senior
    management will be talking about financial results, the new benefits
    package, and increased pressure for employee drug testing?
    
    Steve
    

        If there is any truth to the rumor, it is likely to come out
        in the DVN broadcast, or through discussions with Field Service
        management.  I doubt that Field Service management would answer
        the question in this conference.
        
        If anyone has concrete information regarding this, one way or the
        other, and can *confirm* it by posting a memo or some other
        *official* statement, they're welcome to do so. 
        
        However, in my opinion as a co-moderator, spreading rumors through
        continued speculation is inappropriate.  The example of replies .1
        through .3 shows how easy this is, since one reply asserts that
        Digital lost a lawsuit due to a motor vehicle accident that
        involved an employee with a history of drug use, and other replies
        tell a different story altogether. 
        
        This topic would probably be more appropriate in the Field Service
        conference at FINALY::FIELD_SERVICE, provided it sticks to facts. 
        
        Opinions on drug testing belong in the SoapBox at PEAR::SOAPBOX.
        
        Thank you for your cooperation.
        
        Tom

Re:    < Note 716.6 by DR::BLINN "But wait! There's more!" >
  >               -< Please -- no speculation, stick to facts >-

              
      >  If anyone has concrete information regarding this, one way or the
      >  other, and can *confirm* it by posting a memo or some other
      >  *official* statement, they're welcome to do so. 
      
    	I agree completely, what is needed is a definitive answer, and
    the sooner we can get one, the sooner the issue can be understood,
    if not resolved.  I see that as one of the central purposes of this
    conference:  When one hears a rumor, this is a good place to try
    to find confirmation or denial, and thus avoid just spreading rumors.
    
      >  However, in my opinion as a co-moderator, spreading rumors through
      >  continued speculation is inappropriate.  The example of replies .1
      >  through .3 shows how easy this is, since one reply asserts that
      >  Digital lost a lawsuit due to a motor vehicle accident that
      >  involved an employee with a history of drug use, and other replies
      >  tell a different story altogether. 
    
    That is your personal opinion. The fact that you are co-moderator
    has nothing to do with it.  In my personal opinion, replies .1 -
    .3 are exactly why this sort of discussion is appropriate and
    productive in this conference: in a short period, another rumor was 
    debunked and put to rest. NOT spread, put to rest. 
       
      >  This topic would probably be more appropriate in the Field Service
      >  conference at FINALY::FIELD_SERVICE, provided it sticks to facts. 
    
    If the policy were limited to Field Service, then I would agree
    with you.  However, there are lots of other Digital employees that
    have company cars, and any policy implemented for one group is likely
    to (eventually) apply to many others.  Thus the topic is of interest
    to the Digital audience at large, and germaine to this conference.
    
      >  Opinions on drug testing belong in the SoapBox at PEAR::SOAPBOX.
        
    ...Except when they constitute a major change in Digital's attitude
    towards its employees and their privacy, as this policy would. 
    That is a topic that deserves clarification and discussion in this
    conference.  NOT random flames about the practice of drug testing
    anywhere, but reasoned discussion of how this policy affects and/or
    changes "life at Digital".
    
    
      >  Thank you for your cooperation.
        
    Thank you for listening to opinions other than your own.
    
    Kevin Farlee, SWS, Santa Clara, Calif.  

	Re: .4

    >> Did anyone check the deceased cow for drugs?
    
	They should! I'd suspect the cow was a heavy "Grass" user.

	-Marc

From:	NAME: HARVEY WEISS                  
	FUNC: GSG                     
	TEL: 297-2526             <WEISS.HARVEY AT A1 AT DCMHUB AT MRO>
Date:	06-Jan-1989
Posted-date: 07-Jan-1989
Precedence: 1
Subject: DOD Drug-Free Workforce Clause
To:	See Below
CC:	See Below



    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
THIS MESSAGE IS FROM HARVEY WEISS, V.P., GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS GROUP, AND 
         ERLINE BELTON, CORPORATE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS MANAGER.

  Managers should make further distribution as appropriate and discuss 
                its contents with affected employees.
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


The Department of Defense (DoD) is now requiring a new clause, DFARS 
252.223-7500, "Drug-Free Work Force'" be added to contracts involving 
access to classified information.  This clause may also be included in 
unclassified contracts where the DoD contracting officer determines 
that the clause is necessary.

Digital Equipment Corporation is now accepting contracts containing 
this new DoD clause.  Specifically, Digital has accepted the inclusion 
of the Drug-Free Work Force clause on certain work orders on WR-ALC 
BOA #F09650-85-G-0001.  Employees and managers assigned to a work 
order from this contract should understand that the clause may affect 
each individual assigned and will affect their employer, Digital 
Equipment Corporation.

The Drug-Free Work Force clause requires Digital Equipment Corporation 
to institute and maintain a program for achieving a drug-free work 
force.  Digital has begun work on this program which when completed is 
expected to include, among other features, an employee assistance 
program (EAP), supervisory training, provisions for referral and 
provisions for identifying illegal drug users.  Identifying drug users 
is expected to require drug testing on a controlled and carefully 
monitored basis.  It is also expected that Digital's work rules 
regarding drug use will be modified.

Digital is several months away from a final position on the extent to 
which testing will be a required part of the drug program under the 
regulation.  The extent of drug testing to be conducted will be 
determined by a number of factors, including the nature of the work an 
employee performs under a specific contract, the resources Digital 
assigns to the drug program required by the regulation and the risks 
to public health, safety and national security that could result from 
the failure of a Digital employee to adequately perform on a contract 
covered by the clause.

Your employees are now being assigned to or are supporting a contract 
that contains the new DoD Drug-Free Work Force clause.  Therefore, 
employees currently in these positions will be subject to the DoD 
guidelines in the clause at some point in the future.  It is important 
that Digital make clear to these employees some of the management 
considerations on drug testing that Digital has established as we 
begin the design of the drug program required under the regulation:
         
         o  Digital will only accept the DoD drug clause when 
            required by the regulation.
         
         o  Before implementing testing as an integral part of a 
            drug program, Digital senior management will 
            carefully consider all appropriate issues and will 
            put in place a quality program consistent with 
            Digital's values.
         
         o  When Digital initiates drug testing as a part of its 
            drug program required by the DoD clause, prior to the 
            introduction of testing employees will be notified of 
            the details of the testing and the implications of 
            the requirement.
         
In closing, we wish to emphasize that the contract to which some of 
your employees are being assigned does contain the new DoD Drug-Free 
Work Force clause and that this clause has the potential to subject 
certain positions to drug testing.  When this possibility becomes a 
reality, affected employees will be notified prior to initiation of 
testing.  We will also keep all employees informed in personnel 
bulletins as the development of the drug program required by the DoD 
clause proceeds.

Should your employees have any further questions on the new DoD 
Drug-Free Work Force clause we encourage them to discuss with their 
respective manager or contact Fred Beckette, FSG Human Resources 
Manager, DTN 297-4818.

Harvey


To Distribution List:

AL PINK @RHQ,
RON WOLF @RNQ,
ALAN ANDERSON @RHQ,
LINDA JOHNSON @ATO,
KEN REEVES @GGO

CC Distribution List:

BRIAN MCDONALD @OGO,
JOHN HENDERSON @RHQ,
HARRY EISENGREIN @RHQ,
GERALD SELBY @ATO,
CHICK SHUE @MRO,
DON BUSIEK @OGO,
BILL FERRY @PKO,
DAVE GRAINGER @OGO,
DON ZERESKI @WFR,
JIM ONEILL @EKO,
DAN ZOGRAN @EKO,
ERLINE BELTON @CFO,
CYNDI BLOOM @PKO,
JOHN DOHERTY @CFO,
PAUL HENRION @MSO,
JEFF SCHNEIDER @DER,
DAVE BURKE @WNP,
JACK SHIELDS @OGO

    And in case anyone was wondering, WR-ALC is US Air Force's Warner
    Robins Air Logistics Center.  It's located in Warner Robins, GA., about
    100 miles south of Atlanta. Digital has a large SWS, FS and Sales
    presence on that base worth many $$$. 

After reading Harvey's memo, I doubt Ken will be saying much more about *who*
will be tested during the DVN broadcast tomorrow.  DEC hasn't decided yet.

Obviously people working directly on the contract are affected.

But what are the wider ramifications of the contract provision?  By accepting
the provision on the contract has Digital said that the entire workforce of
the company will be drug free?  Or just those affecting the contract?

Will VMS engineering be tested, because of the government's concern that a
drug-crazed VMS engineer will accidentally leave a bug in a VMS release?

Will IOSG in Reading be tested because Warner-Robbins uses ALL-IN-1?  Will
European employees complain more loudly about this forcing of American law
on Europe than they do about the requirement to attend Export Controls Training?

Will we have to pee into a bottle in front of our supervisor?

Will employees who take ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin, Nuprin) be in danger of being
fired?  (Ibuprofen sets off the cannabinoid indicator.)

/john

    re: -1
    
    A UNION?  Surely you are not suggesting that DEC cease business
    with it's largest customer in order to avoid drug testing, are you?
    
    As an employee, I feel testing is an unwarranted intrusion into
    peoples private lives.  As a stockholder, I expect the company to
    avoid suicide. 
    
    Bottom line, the problem is not in Maynard, but in Washington. 
    No matter what happens, let's not forget that.
    
    Al
    

    
    	   I'm a bit upset here.  Ibuprofen is the only over-the-counter
    	drug that works for me when I get back pains or headaches.  Aspirin
    	doesn't work, neither does acytomenophin.  
    
    	   As a presales software specialist working out of Houston, there
    	is little or no chance that I will ever get involved in government
    	contracts in any way, especially since it's not my unit.  Yet,
    	the way I read the memo even I will be subject to testing, as will
    	all employees, great and small.  
    
    	   The wording of the memo seems to indicate that those who are
    	directly involved in government contracts with this clause will
    	be the first to be tested.  It is less clear about when the rest
    	of us fall prey to this ruling.
    
    	   If my experience with other companies is any indication, this
    	policy will eventually have to take effect across the board,
    	in order to assure compliance with the DoD guidelines.  Clearly,
    	nobody want to admit that yet, and perhaps some are struggling 
    	against it actively at the higher levels.  Ultimately, I fear 
    	that we will be given two choices; comply or kiss the government
    	business goodbye.  This assumes, of course, that the government
    	is not so dependent upon our services that they will alter
    	(or disuse) this ruling to allow our continued relationship.
    	I think that a fair assumption.
    
    	   Given the economic pull the government contracts have, I 
    	sincerely doubt Digital will be able to put up much of a 
    	fight.
    
    	   Welcome to the New Improved America.
    
    	- Greg
    

    RE .ALL
    
    This is disgusting. I for one would absolutely refuse to be drug
    tested unless I was paid for the inconvenience. Basically I would
    only take the test if I was guaranteed a $10,000 payment if my test
    were to turn out negative. If that was refused, I would refuse to
    take the test. If I was told that it was take the test or be fired
    I would voluntarily go somewhere have a test taken and have it
    timestamped. If I was then fired I'd make as much hay as possible
    over the harassment of an innocent individual. Of course my test
    would have been negative.
    
    I would hope that many others would have the courage to follow such
    a course.
    
    I find it absolutely unacceptable that an individual's privacy and
    personal rights can be violated in such a way. The time to stand
    up and be counted is now.
    
    Dave

        Flames will NOT be tolerated here.  A debate about the merits or
        demerits of drug testing, whether it's an infringement of your
        personal liberties, etc. belongs in PEAR::SOAPBOX, unless it
        is focused specifically on the question of what is actually
        happening here at Digital and how it affects the way we work.
        
        Discussion of the Harvey Weiss memo (in .9, which I will extract
        so that if it disappears it can be reposted) is reasonable, and is
        welcomed.  Special thanks to the person who posted it. 
        
        Please note that the memo suggests that you talk with your own
        supervisor.  It also says that further information on the program
        will be forthcoming.  Until further information comes forth, we
        are *speculating* about what will happen.  Please don't start
        rumors here, or use this conference to spread them.  Far too many
        people *believe* what they read in conferences without using any
        sort of credibility filters. 

        Tom

    RE: .12  
    
>    Surely you are not suggesting that DEC cease business with it's largest
>    customer in order to avoid drug testing, are you? 

    And who, pray tell, do you think DEC's largest customer is?  What
    percentage of our business is with the U.S. govt.?
    
    

RE: .14

Right on!  I believe very strongly that mandatory drug testing is clearly 
unconstitutional.  It is an invasion of my privacy as an "innocent-till-
proven-guilty" American citizen.  My job description does not include 
urinating into a bottle in front of ANYONE, and if Digital wants me to do 
that then there will be a price over and above what they pay me to be a 
Corporate Account Manager.  If they'd like to ADD a clause about urinating 
to my job description then I'll be happy to begin salary negotiations in 
light of my new job responsibilities.

I've been with this company almost 11 years, and I've been bit with the
"DEC Religion" for most of that time.  I've seen good times and bad, and
stuck with Digital through both 'cause Digital has stuck by me and treated
me fairly and with compassion.  This is honestly the first thing that has
ever happened that causes me to decide beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'd
leave the company without an ounce of regret. 

							Pat

P.S.  I don't use drugs other than an occasional alcoholic beverage.

    re: .16
    
    It's pretty obvious who I "think" is our largest customer.  As of
    a few years ago, it was the US Government.  GE was (and perhaps
    still is) the largest non-government account.
    
    What percentage of our business?  I don't know.  Until our investors
    authorize us to give up business, does it matter?
    
    Al
    

    re .15 >Flames will NOT be tolerated here..........
    
    This conference is about the Digital way of working. One of the
    key items in Dec's culture is freedom. This discussion is about
    that! I for one think that your trying to move this discussion to
    Soapbox is not valid!
    
    I think you have to fight this thru your elected represetatives,
    not by placing your job at risk. I expect that a survey of Digital
    employees would show at least 85% opposed. I think that 20% or so
    may well respond as Pat did. I think that the company might well
    have to choose between the U.S. Government as a customer and an
    uncomfortable percentage of long term, valued employees. That can
    be prevented if enough of us protest to our Senators. Mine is George
    Mitchell, He gets a call at lunch!
    
    This should be discussed here AND in soapbox.
    
    dick 

    Re subject's applicability in DIGITAL:
    
    This is a toughie, but I think it applies, _so long as it's in the
    context of its impact on the Digital culture_.  For instance, there's
    been a no-alcohol rule for U.S. facilities since the company's early
    years (if not founding), but I cannot recall the idea of mandatrory
    alcohol use testing being floated.
    
    Let's agree to tread a careful line here:  As I noted earlier, some
    over-the-counter medications will give false positive readings;
    interestingly, some of these may be being dispensed by Health Services
    in some facilities.  To the extent that drug testing becomes a
    corporate policy, which would be of some concern, and associated
    discussions, would be appropriate; however, general philosophical
    flames might indeed be best left to SOAPBOX.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

I wonder how long the clause would last if Dec, IBM, Sun, (etc.) all
politely informed the government that they cannot in good conscience
sign this contract, so the government will just have to buy its
computers from some other vendor.

Freeing us from dependency on Government contracts might prove to be
a very sound business strategy in the long term.

Martin.

    I thought I'd put this here only to let those opposed to drug testing
    within DEC, that there is another view by employees.
    
    Go ahead, Digital, read my urine!  I'll stand first in line.  I'm
    a 19year deccie who wants to help anyway I can.  This country is
    at war.  Against an enemy that we all don't agree upon, and 
    for those who see it as a threat,  don't agree on a battle plan.
    If it were solders from another coutry bombing Boston, *few* would
    mine if we drafted youngsters to kill other men, would they?  This
    enemy is attacking our grade schoolers,  attacking all ages/wealth.
    
    I'll stop here, but only to say if it was constitutional to draft
    youngsters before into an army to fight an enemy, its constituational
    to draft all of us.  I see pissing into the bottle as a declaration
    to my employer that I value my family and him not to be involved
    with the enemy.
    
    ed badger

Re .22:

	IF drug testing NEVER produced a false positive result, and IF drug
    testing at work would really control the problem in society at large, I
    MIGHT agree with what you say, BUT drug tests do have a significant false
    positive rate and there is some serious question about the effectiveness
    of drug testing on controlling the drug problem in society.

	While I can't say I never use drugs, the drugs I do use are limited to
    medicinal application (Asprin, Anti-biotics, Anti-histimens...) or are 
    legal and consumed in strictly limited quantities (Ethanol).  Still, I do
    not want to put my family's livelihood in the hands of some lab technician
    I have never met who is more likely to be on mind altering drugs than I am.

	While I agree that the 'drug' problem is a very serious one, I also
    find that the proposed drug testing has MANY VERY LARGE down side risks.  
    If the DIGITAL management can find a way to limit all these risks, AND can
    convince me that they have done so, I will be very happy to cooperate.
    Until that happens, I object strongly and as a (small) stock holder would
    understand giving up some government business.  (There are a number of 
    other kinds of government business that DEC does not solicit on policy
    grounds from what I have heard.  Adding one more kind of business to avoid
    to the group might not make that much difference.)

    I wonder how much DEC will support someone who doesn't want to be
    on a project that requires drug testing? I would expect that as
    long as DEC only requires people on some projects to be tested that
    the option will be there for people to opt of of the project.

    I would never use drugs for other then medical reasons and would
    have not fear of a fool proof test but there are no such tests. I
    also tend to agree that there should be some kink of reasonable cause
    (poor performance, erratic behavior,etc) before making some kind of
    test.  If the government is going to require more then that then maybe 
    it is time to turn away that business. Heck the way the law makes us
    handle our pricing turning away the US government might give our
    margins a big boost. If IBM (with or with out anyone else) did the
    same rules would change fast.

    			Alfred

    
      Might as well argue about automatic income tax withholdings from your
    weekly paycheck. The health and safety of the general public generally
    takes precedent over individual freedom. So drug testing is instituted
    for athletes, pilots, then servicemen, then train engineers, then bus 
    drivers,then policemen/firemen,...teachers,...you,...me,...nurses,...and 
    probably last doctors, food preparers, politicians (the sequence is
    silly but probably factual). Times change, the public (and me) wants 
    assurances that those providing product or services are able. Those 
    providing product and services want to minimize liability and legal 
    expenses. 
    
      Just make it a fair and equal (everybody) test or forget it.
    
      Someone who was nearly electrocuted in WOO by a tech with a buzz-on,
    
    clay

    The replies to this note topic are very reminiscent of the replies
    to 565. (the note about the car plan) In that case,DEC made a business
    decision then reversed that decision because (probably) it would
    have adversely affected profits.
    DEC may go for drug testing because it would affect profits if they
    don't...or then DEC may forego drug testing and lose contracts,again
    because of money.
    Whatever is decided,I'll go along with it.
    BTW: There's so much competition that DEC will probably go along
    with the gov't in order to keep contracts...the stockholders will
    demand it.(my opinion)

    RE the response by Tom Blinn.
    
    Please don't try and send me off to soapbox. My reply was very much
    relevent to my employment with Digital and the Digital way of working.
    Yes I know I stated it very vehmently but that is how I feel about
    this issue (yes the place to debate my philosophy is in SOAPBOX).
    
    I am glad to see that there are others besides myself who put their
    personal liberty before their employment. I just hope it never gets
    to the point where Digital the company forces an employee out because
    he won't submit to having his personal liberty violated.
    
    Obviously mandatory drug testing is pointless unless you have an
    individual in authority physically observe you piss into a bottle.
    Or somebody would have to violate my body by sticking a needle into
    it. It is this aspect of it that I object to. I'll stop there because
    to go further I would be getting into my view of life.

    I sincerely hope that Digital doesn't implement such a policy.
    
    Dave

    RE: profitability, shareholder demands, etc.
    
    What effect do you think it would have on DEC's profitability if 20%
    of the engineering force refused to undergo drug testing and were
    fired/resigned?                        
                                           
    Steve
    
    BTW:
    Given my experience with the independent, anti-authority nature
    of the engineers I know, I think 20% is a reasonably accurate figure.

                            -< To Drug Testing >-
    
    Well, Digital's lost it.  So much for "Do the Right Thing".  So much
    for caring about employees. 
    
    If Digital will no longer give the proper concern to its employees,
    somebody else must.  It is time we addressed these matters ourselves. 
    
    I think a lot of people are opposed to this.  Shall we start by
    drafting a group letter to Digital?  We could express a conviction that
    certain rights belong to us as people and Digital should not be selling
    them to the government.  And we would request that Digital state in
    writing the extent to which it will sell obligations on its employees
    to the government.  This would be a preliminary letter, not a place for
    demands, threats, or declaration of future action.  How many people
    would be willing to sign such a letter?  How many would manage the task
    of having copies available for signing at their site? 
    
    
    				-- edp 

    Re .30 (edp):
    
    Eric, that's a bit premature.  I cannot but believe that this
    particular note is being read be people with an official interest
    in the matter (and I don't mean Network Police or Network Big_Brother).
    
    I believe DIGITAL Note 716.* is taking care of the very legitimate
    concerns.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .31
    >>I cannot but believe that this particular note is being read be people
    >>with an official interest in the matter (and I don't mean Network
    >>Police or Network Big_Brother). 

    I disagree.  I've been noting for a long time, well probably about
    5 years or so.  I personally know of no instance, however serious,
    where anyone with any decision-making power has monitored a VAX
    Notes conference and initiated any action because of it.  That doesn't
    mean it hasn't happened, but if it has it was well hidden.
    
    I think the group letter to Digital is a good start.  But even more
    important than that is writing our Senators and Congressmen to let
    them know what we think of this.
    
    One last comment:  I couldn't help giggling a little when I read
    someone's idea that IBM, Sun, DEC, and all the other major vendors
    should just politely decline doing further business with the government
    because of the clause.  It'll never happen, but it sure would be
    fun...
    
    							Pat

    re .29
    
    >> What effect do you think it would have on DEC's profitibility if 20%
    >> of the engineering force refused to undergo drug testing and were
    >> fired/resigned?
    
    Gee, I don't know, but given that elsewhere I've read where DEC has
    lowered hiring rates to keep costs under control, and that Wall Street
    liked that, what do you think?
    
    Might also be a good way to have more cooperative engineers, as the
    rabble-rousers would leave.
    
    NOTE: I don't want to advocate any of the previous two paragraphs, but
    just show there could be a hidden agenda.
    
    Myself, I'd probably go along with it, just to keep my job, even though
    it would trouble me.
    
    Rich
    

    Well, I just got done watching the DVN broadcast that talked about
    this, and despite all the beaurocratic doublespeak, I am *VERY*
    concerned about what I heard.
    
    In particular (to paraphrase) "We are not planning widespread drug
    test YET".  
    
    It sounds to me like they're trying to get their foot
    in the door (with people involved in government contracts), but I 
    expect this program to be slowly expanded company-wide.  
    
    Steve
    

        Did anyone actually attend the DVN broadcast this afternoon?
        
        What did K.O. and the other senior managers have to say about
        this matter?
        
        Until we know what is actually being planned, we may well be
        brewing a tempest in a teapot.
        
        Think carefully about your positions on this matter.  Someone made
        an assertion before about "freedom".  Digital isn't about freedom.
        If you believe that, then you don't really understand this
        company.  Digital has always allowed employees a very large amount
        of leeway, but Digital is very much about doing the right thing,
        and accepting responsibility for one's actions, and honesty.
        
        People have been fired from this company for using alcohol (an
        addictive drug) in the workplace.  Digital is taking measures to
        reduce the use of tobacco (another addictive drug) in the
        workplace.  It's in Digital best interest to discourage the use of
        illicit drugs among its workforce.  This has little to do with
        "freedom", or "rights".
        
        If Digital can develop a fair and equitable drug testing program
        (I understand that that's very big *IF*), are you really going to
        walk out the door if you're told to participate?  Especially if
        Ken Olsen and the other senior managers are the first to be
        tested? 
        
        I agree with an earlier note that suggested that if you want this
        changed, you're going to have to approach your representatives in
        congress, because the pressure is coming (at the present time)
        from the U. S. Government.  However, in doing so, be prudent in
        identifying your affiliation with Digital; it is not Digital's
        practice to attempt to influence legislation, if I'm not mistaken. 
        
        As I hope I've made clear (I'm not perfect in expressing myself),
        I have no objection to discussions, here, of how drug testing,
        should it come to pass, will impact the way we work at Digital. 
        
        I have a very strong objection to inflammatory rhetoric, the use
        of language chosen to create controversy, and other tactics that
        generate lots of heat but shed little light.  
        
        I don't own this conference, but I do own a responsibility to
        Digital as an employee (and as a moderator) to discourage
        statements that are not in the best interest of the corporation.
        If you feel compelled to make such statements, please make them
        elsewhere. 
        
        Tom

    RE:  < Note 716.32 by DLOACT::RESENDEP  >
                                           
    >>> I disagree.  I've been noting for a long time, well probably about
    >>> 5 years or so.  I personally know of no instance, however serious,
    >>> where anyone with any decision-making power has monitored a VAX
    >>> Notes conference and initiated any action because of it.  That doesn't
    >>> mean it hasn't happened, but if it has it was well hidden.
        
    I *DO* know of such an instance.  The AUSTRALIA notesfile was closed
    down by the SPMC (South pacific management committee) when people
    started complaining too publicly about management policies.  Some
    of the chief critics have since resigned from digital because their
    complaints turned out to be "career limiting".
    
    Steve
    

        Reply .34 (and several others, as well) slipped in while I was
        writing .35.  If anyone can obtain a transcript of what was said
        in the DVN (Steve Kallis, do you have any contacts?), it might be
        helpful if you could post it here. 
        
        Tom

    I have just returned from watching the DVN. A little of my concern
    has been lifted but not much.
    
    First of all Ken was not present for the drug section. There was
    a high level lady from personnel and a lawyer. The personnel person
    said all the right things and she sounded sincere. At one point
    she said the drug testing would not be a widespread program.
    Unfortunately the lawyer was obviously very much in favour of drug
    testing and kept on implying it was no big deal.
    
    It was stated that initially only people with security clearance
    or people doing jobs that had a lot of safety concerns would be
    subject to drug testing.
    
    But I very much got the impression that this would be the thin end
    of the wedge.
    
    I myself would accept a drug testing program if the following employee
    safeguards were WRITTEN into it:
    
    	o Any employee asked to be drug tested may refuse. If the employee
    	  refused there would be no negative impact on his career at
    	  Digital.
    
    	o If a drug test was mandated by law for a particular job (eg
    	  working on a government contract) an employee may refuse
    	  the drug test. Digital will then assist the employee to find
    	  another comparable job in the company where the law didn't
    	  force him to be drug tested. This may well include relocation
    	  benefits.
    
    What I liked from the DVN broadcast was that the personnel person
    kept on saying that an employee should be validated by his
    performance. Nobody would be drug tested out of suspicion unless
    their performance indicated a possible drug problem (these weren't
    the words exactly but it was something like that).
    
    There was an audience question that I felt was very relevent at
    the DVN. The question was:
    
    	Is the company evaluating the risk to an employee of a
    	false positive against the risk to the company of a drug abuser.
    	The questioner expressed the opinion that the danger to the
    	employee outweighed the risk to the company.
    
    The answer was that this was one of things being evaluated. It was
    very clear to me that this whole issue is still being debated at
    a high level in Digital and I got the impression that there was
    quite a lot of disagreement on how much drug testing should be done.
    I also feel that they're at a stage where informed calm input could
    be beneficial.
    
    Therefore regarding the previous note suggesting an official letter. I think
    this is an excellent idea. I would be more than happy to gather
    signatures at the LKG site.
    
    Dave 

[I had written this before .38 got in. I agree with his summary of the
discussion and with his call for explicit safeguards in any program
that does get adopted.]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: < Note 716.35 by DR::BLINN "Now for something completely different.." >

>        Did anyone actually attend the DVN broadcast this afternoon?
>        
>        What did K.O. and the other senior managers have to say about
>        this matter?

I attended the broadcast. I arrived about 5 minutes late (KO and Dom LaCava
were discussing the DECtop announcement and strategy), and I left just as the
host was saying "we're out of time" in the drug discussion; however, I think
I heard everything of consequence about the drug issue.

Ken and Dom didn't discuss drug testing (at least not in what I saw). That
discussion involved the corporate personnel manager, one of the corporate
lawyers, the host, and some audience members. The manager and the lawyer
tried to convey themes like: this will be very limited (only when there's
a need), DEC very much values its culture (respect for and trust of the 
individual), and testing is only a minor part of an overall program aimed
at helping employees with substance abuse problems. [I'm paraphrasing, not
quoting exactly.]

Still, I couldn't help suspecting that DEC may get steamrollered into
a more widespread and intrusive program. As a previous noter remarked,
what's to stop the government from testing all VMS software engineers because
many defense-related systems run on VMS and some drug-crazed VMS engineer
might have inserted a bug?  I sometimes take ibuprofen instead of aspirin --
is it indeed true that this could trigger a "positive" for marijuana use?
If so, I guess I'll just get tagged as a drug-crazed technical writer.

    I'm not sure I understand how a stoned/whatever software engineer can
    be hazardous in any case.  It seems to me that any flaky code would
    be pretty easily detected - it takes a clear head to implement those
    really subtle bugs that show up just when you don't want them to!
    
    On the other hand, if you want a guaranteed way to get some lousy
    software, then a good way to do it would be to demotivate the workforce 
    by refusing to trust their judgement as to what constitutes reasonable
    behaviour.
    
    By the way, can "the tests" detect that last night I was present at
    a talk in Cambridge by Timothy Leary?
    
    

    Re: .40
    
    I don't think the 1950's "guilt by association" has been resurrected.
    Yet.

    Re .31:
    
    Why on Earth do you think talking to Digital is premature?  Are we
    supposed to shut up and let others run our lives?  Digital has
    _already_ decided to test employees; we are being informed after the
    fact.  Digital did not talk to us, so let's start the dialogue.
    
    The decision Digital has made is already unacceptable to some people --
    how can reacting to it now be premature; are they supposed to wait and
    see if Digital does something even more offensive? 
    
    
    Re .35:
    
    I also saw the DVN broadcast.  The two people were making all the
    statements of proponents of drug testing.  They showed only one sign
    that Digital disliked the requirements -- a mention that Digital was
    lobbying (not their word) to change the requirements.  Although they
    acknowledge people's objections existed, they never acknowledged their
    validity.  They just continued to give assurances about making the
    program acceptable.  They always spoke of abuse, as if a person testing
    positive once is a drug abuser. 
    
    > Until we know what is actually being planned, we may well be
    > brewing a tempest in a teapot.
    
    As I said, we know some of what is planned, and it is already too much.
    Additionally, on the broadcast it was mentioned that Digital is
    preparing to accept drug testing demands from OTHER companies.  The
    "foot in the door" effect is ALREADY taking place. 
    
    > If Digital can develop a fair and equitable drug testing program (I
    > understand that that's very big *IF*), are you really going to walk out
    > the door if you're told to participate?
    
    It is IMPOSSIBLE to develop a fair drug program for the simple reason
    that the choice of what drugs to make illegal is political and not
    scientific.  EVEN IF absolutely perfect tests are used and EVEN IF it
    is moral to subject people to such pressure and EVEN IF it is desirable
    to let the government have so much control over people and companies,
    it is STILL the case that people will be penalized because they chose
    to enjoy themselves in an UNPOPULAR but SAFE manner because not
    EVERYTHING the government happens to outlaw is actually bad. 
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    	In an effort to increase everyone's awareness of potential
    implications and effects of drug testing, here goes.
    
    What about the people who are LEGITIMATELY using prescribed medication
    that WILL trigger positive results? Will the tests be able to filter
    out the abuser from a non-abuser given that both take a prescribed
    medication that ALWAYS registers positive?
    
    Somehow I don't see myself being excused from the testing because
    I'm taking prescribed medication that is KNOWN to trigger a
    positive result. It's the same problem as before in a slightly
    different light. Confusion of an over-the-counter medication with
    an abused substance versus prescribed medication always generating
    positive results.
    
   The plot thickens...
    
    							Warren
     

       RE: .43
       
       	That's a question *I* want answered. I'm a user of Naprosyn (same
       family of drugs that John Covert mentioned) and if I tested
       positive for pot and am persecuted as a result, someone is gonna
       not enjoy my reaction cuz I've never smoked (ANYTHING!) in my life!
       
       Now yes, I just might be jumping to conclusions BUT this is a
       VERY serious subject and the ball is already rolling.
       
       	If they wanna take my urine they'll have to pry my cold, dead
       fingers off the bottle.. (semi-smile)
       
       							mike

    
    	   I made a vow with myself some time back.  I have vowed 
    	never to sign any forms which voluntarily waive my rights as a
    	citizen of a free country.  This means I will never sign a 
    	consent form which allows the company/government to search my
    	body for evidence of illegal activity without prior cause.  This
    	may be a career-limiting decision, but I am far more willing to
    	live with that risk than I am to live with the risk of losing
    	my freedom because I sought security.
    
    	   As an aside, I was out of town (at a customer site) when the
    	DVN was run, and would really appreciate it if someone would take
    	the time to enter the transcipt.  Failing that, I will check out
    	the DVN videotape when it hits the shelves and do so myself.  I 
    	think it is important that we all know exactly what was said.
    
    	   I agree with Eric that a letter-writing campaign may well be
    	the best way to get action on this issue, yet I further	
    	acknowledge that it is against company policy to use this
    	(or any other Notes file) to organize such a campaign.  Still,
    	if anyone feels like organizing such a campaign, please feel
    	free to contact me by E-mail at the above address.  I would
    	definitely be interested in participating.
    
    	   In my opinion, it's time to make a decision.  We must decide
    	whether we will continue to let the government "of the people,
    	by the people, and for the people" continue to use its economic
    	clout to impose oppression upon the people.  Policies such as
    	these, being born in the Pentagon instead of Congress, are 
    	clearly not indicative of the will of the masses.  While the
    	people may agree in principle that a drug-free America would be
    	a "good thing", most enlightened people would be opposed to 
    	allowing our rights to be stripped from us without our consent.
    
    	   When the government ceases to act in the best interest of the
    	people, it is up to the people to change the government.  It is
    	our responsibility to make our opinions known.
    
    	- Greg

    This is such an emotional subject, it's difficult to comment  without
    risking the rath of the 'inflammatory comments' police, but here
    goes.  Just take this as one person's opinion:
    
    Even if the testing was totally (100%) accurate, and could distinguish
    which illicit drug was being abused (and what boat it came in on),
    testing would still be an invasion of privacy, and a violation of
    personal rights.  Drug abuse and addiction are indeed serious problems,
    but they are an illness, and should be treated as such.  The problem
    with testing is that the results are more typically used to treat
    the LEGAL problem, and ignore the illness at best.  Some recent
    attempts have been made to give lip service to the medical aspects,
    but the primary focus is on punishment in the name of deterence.
    
    On top of all of this is the social stigma of being labelled a 
    drug abuser -- the same kind of stigma that people in organizations
    like A.A. have been trying to fight for decades.
    
    The bottom line: testing is unfair, and should not be allowed in
    a society that is too immature to handle the results properly.
    The end does not justify the means.  Life just isn't that simple,
    kids.
    
    

    1) IBM already does drug testing.
    
    2) Such over the counter drugs as poppy seed buns can trip the tests.
    This is in addition to statistical error false positives.
    
    3) Random testing no, testing under probable cause, maybe.
    
    4) Re other customers: Do we provide the religious affiliation of
    personnel assigned to projects for the Near East?  Do we provide
    racial information on personnel for countries that might care about
    this?
    
    5) I'm  non-user of almost everything (tobacco, caffeine, illegal
    drugs), and a very moderate user of alcohol, and a heavy user of
    sugar and carbonated water.
    If mandatory testing came about my reaction might be a headache
    and hunger which would cause me to take an over-the-counter drug
    pain reliever and have a poppy seed bun in the presence of the pee
    watcher. (What are they going to do with 100% positives?)

    6) I have a urine test while in the US Army "many" years ago under
    mild compulsion.  It's not an error I'd be likely to repeat.
    
    7) DEC's interest in my personal life should be limited to effects
    on the job.  They should be able to tell me that I am not performing
    as expected and even remind me about EAP, but not randomly test.
    
    /s/ Jim Williams
    

    There's another issue here.  Maybe most of you will consider it stupid;
    maybe my being female makes it more important to me than to the male
    contributors to this note string.  The issue is the indignity of being
    forced to urinate into a bottle in front of a complete stranger.  I
    don't mean to trivialize the larger ethical and moral issue of
    mandatory drug testing; I've made my feelings clear about that.  But
    even my doctor gives me privacy when I have to give a urine sample.
    Although I believe *any* mandatory drug testing is clearly
    unconstitutional, I could deal with a blood test a *whole lot* better
    than the demeaning methods in widespread use today.
    
    In fact, if (a) a blood test instead of a urine test were a valid
    option, and (b) I were assured I would never be asked to take a
    test unless I exhibited suspicious behaviour or otherwise made the
    company feel I might be a user -- if those two things were made
    a part of Digital's drug testing program, then I not only could
    live with it.  I would support it.
    
    							Pat 

    I have a problem with the employee communications process(es) involved
    here.

    Let me start off with a simpler example:  A school principal told the
    executive committee of a PTA (Parent Teachers Assn) that a proposal was
    being made to terminate a program (truthfully).  The principal also
    asked that the exec cmte. not discuss this with the parents so the
    parents would not be "prematurely" alarmed with this proposal.  The
    executive cmte. complied.

    At the school board meeting (the seat of real power), the principal
    stated that the proposal had been discussed with the exec cmte. of the
    PTA.  LEAVING THE IMPRESSION THAT THE PARENTS WERE INFORMED AND ABLE
    TO PETITION THE MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL BOARD IN OPPOSITION TO THE
    PROPOSAL IN THE INTERVENING THREE WEEKS.

    Back to Digital. With electronic mail, distribution lists, DVN's and so
    forth, it's so much more complicated.  I can't tell you where the Weiss
    memo of January 6, 1989 stopped on its way to my desk.  I ask you, did
    anyone _not_ in Weiss's organization get the memo directly?  I want to
    thank DINSCO::FUSCI for posting the memo, I wouldn't have the guts to
    do it.

    I didn't receive a notice of the drug testing discussion DVN either.
    Yet I am sure that senior management thinks that employees have been
    informed and are taking whatever steps they should in response.  So,
    has this been announced?  In 1989, what constitutes a timely
    announcement to all employees, anyway?

    Something that's missing from the quaint discussion of the Digital
    culture is the notion that we are all employees with the same need for
    information.

    It may be convenient for managers to withold news that's sure to spark
    controversy like JEC, car plans, and now drug testing, but
    employee-to-employee, these policies affect all of us and it's wrong
    (in the Digital cultural sense of the word) to allow a clique of
    managers to be "in the know" and keep the rest of the employee
    population in a state of confusion, relying on rumors and notes.

    This little episode for me is the incident that has turned my mind
    around on the need for some employees of the corporation to assume
    direct roles in employee advocacy.  Trust is a two-way street and my
    trust looking up into the management pyramid is beginning to erode.

    By the way, I don't care one way or the other re drug testing, but I
    don't like the precedent this creates regarding employee
    communications.
       

re .44:	naprosyn gives a false positive?  oh great, one twinge in
	my big toe and it's out i go...

--

one thing, though: at least they'll have to force you to pee in
a bottle in a kind, gentle manner.

Re: .30  -- edp

I agree; even if Digital never implements a drug testing program, or if the
program turns out to be reasonable, it's important to make employees' views
known to management.  I'll send you mail off-line.

Re: .33  Rich

>    >> What effect do you think it would have on DEC's profitibility if 20%
>    >> of the engineering force refused to undergo drug testing and were
>    >> fired/resigned?
>    
>    Gee, I don't know, but given that elsewhere I've read where DEC has
>    lowered hiring rates to keep costs under control, and that Wall Street
>    liked that, what do you think?
>    
>    Might also be a good way to have more cooperative engineers, as the
>    rabble-rousers would leave.
    
I think some of the rabble-rousers who would leave would include some of the
more creative and productive people working for DEC (I modestly exclude myself
;^) ), so 20% of the engineering force being fired or resigning for refusing to
take a drug test would hurt DEC far more than a 20% lay-off.  In addition,
many people (like you, maybe) who went along with the test would become more
receptive to outside job offers.

Re: .35  Tom

>        Think carefully about your positions on this matter.

I have.
        
>        If Digital can develop a fair and equitable drug testing program
>        (I understand that that's very big *IF*), are you really going to
>        walk out the door if you're told to participate?

It depends on the policy.  To me, "fair and equitable" means (a) drug testing
would only be done if there were probable cause that an employee had been
working under the influence of drugs, and (b) due consideration would be
given to respecting the privacy of the employees tested.

If Digital developed a drug testing program that did not meet those tests,
and I were forced to take a drug test, then yes, with deep regret, I'd walk out
the door.  If you're interested in my reasons, see note 29.2 in
DLOACT::HUMANISM.

>	Especially if Ken Olsen and the other senior managers are the first
>	to be tested? 
        
That wouldn't be relevant to my decision, but it might influence my opinion
of Digital after I'd left.

>        I have a very strong objection to inflammatory rhetoric, the use
>        of language chosen to create controversy, and other tactics that
>        generate lots of heat but shed little light.  
>        
>        I don't own this conference, but I do own a responsibility to
>        Digital as an employee (and as a moderator) to discourage
>        statements that are not in the best interest of the corporation.
>        If you feel compelled to make such statements, please make them
>        elsewhere. 
        
I think discussing this issue and making clear the consequences if Digital
implements a drug testing policy *is* in Digital's best interest.  I hope
you agree.

				-- Bob

================================================================================
Note 1.13                         Introduction                          13 of 13
HUMAN::CONKLIN "Peter Conklin"                      239 lines  27-MAR-1988 22:31
                               -< Introduction >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speak what's on your mind, even if it's a complaint or criticism of
    someone, some group, or the company as a whole.
.
.
.
    
    This conference is moderated by a group of volunteers. We don't expect
    to do much if any "moderating", as we trust that commonsense and
    prudence will prevail without intervention by the moderator. Therefore,
    we do not feel that any rules need to be made. If this trust be
    violated, however, we reserve the right to "do what is right"
    considering circumstances.
.
.

.
    Lest it needs be said, we will resist attempts at censorship or
    harrassment by anyone.

    re .49:
    
    Pat, I also don't like the way this thing has been communicated. 
    Several of the people on the list were Southern Area (and some were
    SouthEast District) managers, yet the first I heard of this was from
    this notes file. (In case you haven't guessed, I'm in the SED).
    
    Given the near hysteria that our elected officials are making over the
    'drug war', I don't think that any company that does any sort of
    business with any federal, state or even local governments will be able
    to escape this sort of thing for long.  It just happens to be 'in'
    right now to be 'tough' on drug abusers.
    
    Dave

    I'm sorry I did not learn of the DVN broadcast till it was past.  As a
    unit manager within Field Service corporate support, I am frequently
    asked to send people on site to diagnose and repair software defects.
    Just this week, I was asked to provide support to a task force to
    determine service strategy alternatives for highly secure environments.  
    
    Where do I learn of the potential of drug testing for my employees?  In
    a notes conference!  With Harvey Weiss directing my employees to
    come and talk with me about potential drug testing, I feel ill prepared
    to answer their (very legitimate) questions.
    
    Marge

    Re:
    
>    Where do I learn of the potential of drug testing for my employees?  In
>    a notes conference!
    
    You may laugh but more and more, notes conferences are becoming the
    most timely and accurate sources of information about what is going
    on in the company. I wouldn't be surprised if more people learnt
    about this drug testing nonsense through this note than through
    the DVN.
    
    Even though notes conferences may not be 'official' channels I'll
    take them anyday over the slow 'official' channels. I especially
    like this notesfile because it gives employees a chance to band
    together and give their input to policies that are still in the
    making.
    
    I believe that in the long run the implementation of this drug testing
    policy, without adequate written protection for employees rights,
    will be bad for the company as well as potentially employees to
    the charge of 'no smoke without fire' if they:
    
    	a) Refuse a mandatory drug test.
    	or
    	b) Get hit by a false positive.
    
    Personally I believe that the only time a company should consider
    drug testing an employee is if that employee's performance on the
    job is not up to the required level and the supervisor suspects
    that drug abuse is the reason. Even then I don't believe that is
    the best way to go about the problem. I think the lack of adequate
    performance is the thing that should be addressed by the supervisor
    and there is a proscribed policy for corrective action. Of course
    the supervisor may well say to the employee that he suspects that
    the inadequate performance is due to a drug problem and suggest
    means to the employee of getting help. But I maintain that it is
    no business of an employer whether an employee takes drugs or doesn't.
    The employer should only be concerned about the performance level
    of the employee on the job.
    
    Mark my word if drug testing becomes the norm it won't be long before
    there is testing for alcohol, tobacco or anything else that at that
    time is out of vogue.
    
    In my view an employer/employee relation should go no further than
    'a fair days's work for a fair day's pay'. Digital should not take
    on the responsibility of a law enforcement agency. In theory law
    enforcement agencies are responsible to elected representatives,
    Digital and corporations are not and nor should they be.
    
    Also this drug testing thing is putting more power in Digital's
    hands than is currently in the hands of a law enforcement agency.
    
    Today a policeman cannot walk up to a j-random person in the street
    and drug test them. In order for that to happen a law would need
    to be passed. So why should a corporation be allowed to do what
    a law enforcement agency is not empowered to do?
    
    Dave
    

    Well, in fairness to my "chain of command", David, they were busy
    playing musical organization boxes since that memo was issued... no
    doubt it was not uppermost in their minds to make sure it got
    circulated.  :^)
    
    In one respect, I'm glad that this is being presented for what it is, a
    business decision.  If it were a program in support of employee health,
    I imagine it would have come out of Health Services, not government
    marketing.
    
    Marge

	Was any hard news presented in the DVN broadcast?

			Alfred

    Re .56:
    
    The "hardest" facts I can recall from the broadcast were:  Digital has
    already agreed to drug testing, and employees will be told more
    beginning in a month or so and continuing throughout spring and summer.
    The rest was basically fluff.
    
    
    				-- edp 

Re: .35  Tom (again)

>	Especially if Ken Olsen and the other senior managers are the first
>	to be tested? 
        
What would really impress me would be if Ken Olsen and the other senior
managers took my position and refused to submit to the test on moral grounds.
Wouldn't *that* send a message to Washington -- Ken Olsen being fired for
refusing to take a drug test!  ;^)

Re: .51 (me)

What I forgot to mention is that if I were asked to take a drug test because
I was working on a particular project, I'd first ask to be reassigned to a
project where drug testing wasn't a requirement.  It's only if taking the test
and being fired were the only choices that I'd choose to be fired -- leaving
Digital would be my last resort.

Hopefully I'm getting excited over nothing and the drug testing policy will
turn out to be completely reasonable.  I'll just have to wait and see.

I wonder if Digital could satisfy the "drug-free work environment" clause
by having every employee sign a statement saying that they don't take drugs
on the job or come to work under the influence of drugs?

Re:.57 Monty

>    Regarding actual implementation:   Remember the old bumper sticker
>    from the '60's:  "What if they held a war and nobody showed up?"?
>    Well, I'd say that if everybody popped a couple of ibuprofen and
>    ate some poppy seeds on their way to their drug test (or better
>    yet, AT the test!),  and half the workforce tested positive,
>    management/government would have to think hard about relying on
>    those results.

I think it would be better if everyone simply refused to take the test, rather
than taking the test and testing positive.  Even if you didn't take the test
there'd be a suspicion that you'd been taking illegal drugs; if you took the
test and failed it would be ten times worse.  I suspect that your record
would say that you were fired for failing a drug test, and it wouldn't say
that you'd eaten poppy seeds just before taking the test.

				-- Bob

    Any drug-testing program mandated by Digital should include guarantees
    that if an employee tests false-positive, and can substantiate it,
    that the employee is totally reimbursed for all costs (including
    lost time, etc) that the employee experienced as a result of having
    to prove the test false-positive.
    
    Rich

    Re:.57 Monty

    I like your idea.  I take ibuprofen at a relatively high dose for a 
    few days every month, and as far as I'm concerned I can't live 
    without it.  (That's an exaggeration, but I sure as heck wouldn't be
    at work without it.)

    Re:.59

    > I think it would be better if everyone simply refused to take the 
    > test, rather than taking the test and testing positive.

    Me too, but everyone will not refuse to take the test.  I'm willing
    to bet that there is some number of people -- yes, people right here 
    in our lovely company -- who think drug testing is OK, and I'd bet 
    there are some who even think it's a good idea.

    > Even if you didn't take the test there'd be a suspicion that you'd
    > been taking illegal drugs; if you took the test and failed it 
    > would be ten times worse.

    Yup, if you refused to take the test, you'd be considered suspect.
    How does taking the test and having it result in a false positive 
    because of ibuprofen or poppy seeds make it "ten times worse"?  You 
    submitted.  You didn't resist.  You were compliant.  You showed 
    "honorable intent" or some such thing.  You said, before voiding 
    into the bottle (if there is no official on-paper questionaire 
    asking about drugs and foods consumed), "I heard that some over the 
    counter and prescription drugs, and some common foodstuffs can 
    result in a false positive reading.  I take ibuprofen regularly and 
    I'd like you to know that I took some this morning."  (Or, "I love 
    poppy seed cake and had some for breakfast today.") 

    > I suspect that your record would say that you were fired for 
    > failing a drug test, and it wouldn't say you'd eaten poppy seeds
    > just before taking the test.

    Yow!  I think you're jumping to conclusions here.  They're going to 
    fire someone for a false positive?!  These are the facts as I see 
    them:  Ibuprofen is my painkiller of choice, and the only one that 
    works under certain circumstances.  Taking ibuprofen can result in 
    a FALSE positive.  If someone wanted to interpret that false 
    positive as a true positive, and fire me, they'd have a fight on 
    their hands.  There's no way I'd allow myself to be fired for a 
    false test result.

    CQ

    re: scope
    
    I'm sure this will expand to more than the GSG area. In the field,
    we are being pressured by some customers to either (a) allow testing
    of individuals assigned to efforts for these customers, or (b) to
    provide evidence of such testing in-house.
    
    Once we "give-in" to the DoD, a precedent will exist, wherein if
    any customer desires to include such conditions as part of a contract,
    Digital will surely oblige (after all, then it's a business decision,
    not a moral/ethical one). 
    
    re: validity
    
    The single most relevant point to the invalidity of testing hasn't
    yet been brought forward. Most of the substances which would be
    tested for have a fairly short time-span (days) during which their
    presence can be detected. Unless the policy is one of surprise
    testing, it's easy to generate a false *negative* reading by the
    simple act of abstinance for the appropriate period prior to the testing.

    Dave

Re: .61  CQ

Hmmm, you have a point there (that it would be hard to fire you if you could
prove it was a false positive).  However, I object to the test itself, not
just the chance of a false positive.  If it comes down to taking the test or
getting fired I'll keep that idea in mind, but the "crucifiction complex" in
me says that I should take as firm a stand as possible against what I see as
governmental tyranny.

				-- Bob

Re .63, others.

I agree.   Whilst issues such as the accuracy of the test, compensation
for false accusation, privacy during sample collection, and so forth, are
very important, I think the main issue is simply whether your employer
has the moral right to act this way.

dave

        Re: .64
        
>                        -< bunch of drug pushin wimps >-
        
        I am against drug testing in the workplace, but I am neither 
        a drug pusher or a wimp, and I take great offense at being
        called a `drug pushin wimp'.
        
>    If you flunk you have 1 day to turn in your supplier, and then
>    you are shot.
        
        Why do you want to kill people who had a headache and took an
        over-the-counter pain killer before the drug test?  Or people
        who had a false positive for any number of other reasons (such
        as a prescription medication)?  Or people who are implicated
        because of an error in processing the drug test? 
        
        A positive result on a drug test doesn't demonstrate that a
        person has taken illegal drugs.  Even if they are an addict, it
        would be more productive to help them overcome their addiction
        rather than shoot them.  Corpses can't become productive members
        of society. 
        
        					B.J.

Re:  other customers requesting this as a precedent

Years ago in the Southern Area, this very request (drug testing) was made by a
large customer.  At that point, I understand that Digital management made the
decision to politely "say No".  It almost went the other way.  And this was
back circa 1985-6, long before the "drug crisis" became as hot a topic as it is
today.  I was shocked that this would be considered back then, and even more so
that it is now.

Re:  logistics of taking the test

Wonder what would happen if we all went in to give the test, and repeatedly
just couldn't produce a sample ... :-)  Well, it's just a thought.

Seriously, this issue demands calm, reasoned responses by employees to their
management; not hot, emotional ones, although many of us feel strongly about
it.

Tell me more of this policy noted a few replies back that notes is not a
mechanism for staging such things?  That's something I've never heard about.

>Re:  logistics of taking the test
>
>Wonder what would happen if we all went in to give the test, and repeatedly
>just couldn't produce a sample ... :-)  Well, it's just a thought.

 I was involved in drug testing for the Air Nat. Guard.  Let's just they were
buying the coffee... You bought your own soda... ;-)  Even so, some
people didn't get done with the test till almost after lunch...  

 As too the rest of the issues, I felt very good about the Air Forces saftey
mechanisms.  About the only way I could see the process messing up was if one
of the Doctors was deliberatly trying to sabatoge your sample and even them it
would have been *very* tough for them to do it.

 As for false positive's, I believe the system was designed to take those into
account also although I don't remember the details of this issue.

Bottom line is if you want to protest the tests on moral grounds then so be it,
but I think the procedural part of it is very safe (assuming Digital's test has
the same safeguards as the Air Force test)

As an aside, the idea of taking substances known to trigger a false positive is
dangerous.  If I were administering the test the thought that said person was
trying to mask a "real" positive result would certainly cross my mind and I
also wouldn't be inclined cut that person any slack.  If you don't want to take
the test, then don't, and take the consequences or fight them as you desire, I 
wouldn't recommend playing childish games...

>As an aside, the idea of taking substances known to trigger a false positive is
>dangerous.  

Of course, I did not mean to imply that legitimate use of these items should be
stopped, I was referring to the suggestion that one should start popping them
in front of testers...

    I've got a feeling that if a number of employees (even a large number)
    threatened to quit or actually *did* quit over drug testing,there
    would be a lot of people banging at the door ,eager to get hired.I
    really don't think DEC would have a difficult time replacing those
    people,provided,of course,that DEC *wanted* to replace them.

    re: DEC, the universe and everything
    
    Up until lately, I thought that "future shock" was just an interesting
    idea, that Digital was a place that I could work at as long as I was
    productive and felt like it, and that most people thought that there
    were some things worth more than money. 
    
    -joe tomkowitz 

    By the way, I presume that those who think that random urine-
    or blood-testing is ok will also consent to allow DEC Security
    to walk into their houses, any time day or night, with no
    advance notice, in order to search for drugs?
    
    No?  Why not?  Body-fluid testing is not adequate in the war against
    drugs (sic) since it cannot be administered frequently enough to
    be certain you're getting everyone that there is to be got.  Better
    have a little pro-active (also sic) seaching to be sure.  Why not?
    Isn't it worth it for a drug-free society?  
    

    On popping Advil, etc., before taking a test _at_ the test:
    
    Well, it might not hurt, but it takes time for that stuff to get
    into your bloodstream, through your kidneys, and out into your
    urine, if that's the test being used.  That would have to be factored
    in.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    I have been in this country now many many years.  I am really impressed
    how people value their own freedoms and rights.  Unfortunately, they
    conveniently forget to respect and fight for other people's freedom or
    rights.  On the contrary, they almost always seem to be just too eager
    to sacrifice them for the ``good of the society''. 

    Most people have no objections when drug testing is being mandated for
    the ``other group of people''.  Let that group be athletes, air-line
    pilots, truck-drivers or school teachers.  None of the software engineers
    or engineering managers raised their collective eye brows.  We start raising
    hell only when _we_ are forced to pee in bottle in front of a stranger. 

    Drug-testing will not start from the top down i.e. you will not see
    televised peeing in the bottle by the top law makers or by the top
    managers, it will start from the bottom up.  We will be too smug to
    raise an objection when the person who drives our digital truck or the
    person who cleans our office is being forced to urinate in the bottle.
    
- Vikas

Re:< Note 716.72 by MU::PORTER "Gout-sufferers against the test!" >

>    By the way, I presume that those who think that random urine-
>    or blood-testing is ok will also consent to allow DEC Security
>    to walk into their houses, any time day or night, with no
>    advance notice, in order to search for drugs?

  What is in my house is none of DEC Security's business. Digital does,
  however, have a valid concern if while I am doing my Digital-assigned
  duties I am impaired by or am under the influence of a chemical
  substance. As someone previously noted, they were nearly electrocuted
  by someone with a 'buzz' on. I don't want anybody intoxicated while 'on
  duty' at Digital. Do you?

  It is a separate issue of whether employee drug testing is a valid
  method to reduce the occurance of on-the-job drunkenness/high/buzzed/etc.
    
>    No?  Why not?  Body-fluid testing is not adequate in the war against
>    drugs (sic) since it cannot be administered frequently enough to
>    be certain you're getting everyone that there is to be got.  Better
>    have a little pro-active (also sic) seaching to be sure.  Why not?
>    Isn't it worth it for a drug-free society?  
    
  I seriously doubt Digital desires to interfere with anybody's
  after-work activities. I feel that they do have an interest in seeing
  it not become a part of their job at Digital.
  
  Fortunately or unfortunately (depends on your viewpoint) chemical
  testing of employees will reveal whether a particular chemical is
  present- it does not measure the employees' fitness for performing
  their job. The ramifications of this are beyond the charter of this
  notesfile and are (probably) best taken to another notesfile (likely
  PEAR::SOAPBOX).
  
  Lee

  p.s. Close to the topic at hand... opening my dictionary at random to
  check spelling on a word revealed a picture of a small plant... it was
  captioned 'hemp'.

    	If someone has a few drinks in the evening, maybe even gets a
    little drunk, by the next morning there are usually no side affects
    that would leave the person incapacitated. I am of course discounting
    the hang-over since that usually is just a headache and does not limit
    the persons ability to function. 

    	How does it work with drugs? If someone gets a "buzz" on does that
    "buzz" make an individual incapable of performing any normal duty for
    days, weeks?

    	I know of some people that indulge in marijuana and I can honestly
    saw I never know when they have a buzz on. I have also seen it affect
    people in such a way that they look like they are totally drunk, but
    when I see these people the next day they look straight as an arrow. 

    	So my question is this, does the test show that someone is under
    the influence NOW (like a drunk driving test), or does it say that the
    individual "has had a controlled substance within the past six months"?

    	Personally, if the test shows that someone is under the influence
    at the time a job is supposed to be done, then take whatever steps are
    necessary to insure that the job is done correctly. Even if this means
    terminating the individual. 

    	However, if the test says that sometime in the past the person used
    a narcotic, then that is none of anyone else's business. The only thing
    I can liken this to is suppose one day they decide to outlaw alcohol,
    if I have a few drinks in my home, I would affect noone but myself.
    Noone should care that I had a drink or too. But if I got drunk and
    then went to drive a car, there is a real danger to everyone else on
    the road and I should be taken of the road (maybe even permanently by
    the revoking of my license forever).

    	I believe a person has a right to do whatever they want as long as
    it does not impact, or affect, anyone else. I believe this is called
    freedom of choice?

        Re: .74
        
>    Most people have no objections when drug testing is being mandated for
>    the ``other group of people''.  Let that group be athletes, air-line
>    pilots, truck-drivers or school teachers.  None of the software engineers
>    or engineering managers raised their collective eye brows.  We start raising
>    hell only when _we_ are forced to pee in bottle in front of a stranger. 
        
        Speak for yourself--you shouldn't say `none'.  I am a software
        engineer who has previously objected to drug testing for other
        groups, and there are others in DEC who have also objected. 
        
        However, your first sentence is correct.  Most people,
        unfortunately, don't worry about how the loss of freedoms
        and rights for other groups could affect their own freedoms
        and rights in the future. 
        
        					B.J.

RE: .70
>    I've got a feeling that if a number of employees (even a large number)
>    threatened to quit or actually *did* quit over drug testing,there
>    would be a lot of people banging at the door ,eager to get hired.I
>    really don't think DEC would have a difficult time replacing those
>    people,provided,of course,that DEC *wanted* to replace them.

Agreed.  Refusing to take the test as a threat is *not* an intelligent way
to approach this.  Those who refuse to be tested should be fully prepared for
this to end their Digital career, permanently.  You don't have to *like* 
the idea, but you better be ready to accept it.  If you aren't prepared for 
that then you better head for the bathroom...  (^:

							Pat
    

I'd like to add a little bit more about the DVN broadcast.

In response to the "invasion of privacy/rights" issues of drug testing,
the lawyer likened it to no different than informing your employer of
your social security number, home phone number, and other private like
information of that sort.   A specious analogy if there ever was one.
An attitude like that makes me a little nervous.

An audience member asked some of the questions posed here.  Namely,
-what kind of test, urine or blood
-what about the realiability of the laboratories doing the testing
-will a drug test identify drugs taken only recently (and how recently)
 or ever
-what will the criteria be for asking an employee to take the test

Right now, Digital has no answers for these questions, except for the
last one.  The criteria is - a performance problem where substance abuse
is suspected.  It's the "suspected" part that could be quite subjective.
So right now they haven't even decided if it will be a urine or blood
test.  A task force has been formed out of Health Services to investigate
the above issues and report back to the corporation with recommendations.

A new policy surrounding this is supposed to come out in mid-March.  For
now it appears that the testing to be initially instituted will be specific
to that required by the new DoD regulation.  When asked if the testing 
might expand into the general employee population, the corporate employee
relations representative said that this would not be the case now.  The
"now" was subtle, but it was there.

Donna

    Re .74:
    
    > Most people have no objections when drug testing is being mandated
    > for the ``other group of people''. . . .  None of the software
    > engineers or engineering managers raised their collective eye brows.
    
    You can't really believe that, do you?  At first, I thought it was just
    a lie, flat and simple, but maybe you really believe that view?
    
    Ever read Soapbox?  Want to tell me no software engineer or manager has
    ever objected there?  Want to tell me no engineer or manager has ever
    expressed disapproval in any other forum? 
    
    The people who say they would quit before testing have PREVIOUSLY
    objected when they decided to work for Digital instead of companies
    that WOULD do drug testing.  I completely excluded IBM from my job
    search simply because of their corporate mentality, as reflected in
    things from their dress code to the design of their products.
    
    So the attitude you are seeing now is not hypocritical nor is it a
    change -- these people wouldn't work for other companies they didn't
    like and they're saying they won't work for Digital if it changes.
    
    
    				-- edp                  

re Soliciting and Notes Conferences:

It would certainly not be a violation of policy to use this conference to
solicit employees to make their opinions on a matter of importance known to
Digital Management.  It *may* be a violation of policy to use a conference
to solicit employees to make their opinions known to parties outside the
company.

re Purpose of the Testing

If the only testing at Digital will be testing explicitly required by 252.223-
0000, then the lawyers will have to interpret the clause to determine what its
scope is.  That's why I asked someone who might have access to the clause (or
who might take the time to go to the library and look it up in the Federal
Register) to post it here.  Until we see it, we're speculating.

Without reading the clause, we can't say for sure that the clause only requires
Digital to make sure no employees have drug related performance problems.  We
can't say for sure that the clause only applies to employees directly related
to the contracts.

Based on the strong anti-drug statements made by both major U.S. political
parties, I expect the intent of the clause is to make sure that drug users be
identified and punished.  Digital will not be allowed to have drug users, even
highly productive drug users, in its employ if Digital wishes to continue to do
business with the government and most other government contractors.

The tests will identify drug use within the past several days, weeks, or months,
depending on the characteristics of the drug, the test, and your metabolism.

/john

	There is more to this kind of testing than just drug testing.  There is
    also a risk (although I think it is very small at this point) that other
    tests could be performed at the same time.  For example, a urine sample 
    from any female employee could be subjected to a pregnancy test.  The 
    information obtained could be very helpful in cutting health insurance 
    costs.  How about the converse - a female who previously tested pregnant
    showing up non-pregnant?  This is a real can of very slimy worms and should
    be closed before any of them get out!

	Further, since there is a risk associated with the test and a violation
    to the rights of the individual, shouldn't there be some compensation for
    submitting to a drug test?  How about a month's pay?  How about jacking up
    the price of any contract that requires employees be tested for drugs by
    50%?  How much is it worth to clean up the drug problem?  Blast it, all
    of you in favor of indiscrimenant drug testing, put your money where your
    mouth is!

        RE: .82 -- You're using inflammatory rhetoric, and you're showing
        an incredible lack of trust in Digital's senior management to try
        to "do what's right". 
        
        Tom

How about random alcohol testing (breathalizer) for all senior management
upon returning from lunch!  8^)

    Re: .83 and .82 
    
    I regarded .82 as considerably less inflammatory than several earlier
    notes.  And it is *always* reasonable to ask what could be the side
    effects from any given policy. 
    
    Which do you suppose "Digital's senior management" rates as the higher
    priority: drug testing or contracts?  The already-announced drug
    testing program, however limited today, has answered that question. So
    much for "do the right thing" when contracts are involved.
    
    DEC may be much better than other companies, but man's powers of
    rationalization can overcome almost any obstacle, particularly when
    there is money behind it. 

Digital is doing the right thing...for Digital (the company)

Consider it part of your salary continuation plan.  

This is a business, not a democracy.   If you want to change the civil 
liberties infringment of drug testing, you must do so in the democracy,
not the business.   Digital can only assume that if the US gov't says
"thou shalt be free from drugs" to all of its vendors, then it must be
because that is what "We the People" want.

Don't blame Digital for our own political ineptness.

Bob

    Re: .84 
    
    Testing for alcohol after lunch? The analogy is WONDERFUL!, especially
    in view of Digital's 30-odd year policies on alcohol. And alcohol is a
    drug, however licit. 

    Re: .86 
        
    And don't excuse Digital from contributing to the problem by meekly
    going along with whatever the government says!
    
    Digital has extremely carefully avoided certain types of government
    contracts (cost plus, et al.) for its entire life because that would
    allow the government to come into Digital and have a huge say on our
    accounting practices.  If the company can reject contracts on that
    basis, the company can surely reject contracts on the basis of a drug
    testing requirement. 

I've read all the replies to this base note and have three points that don't
appear to be covered:

1) When I buy a toaster I check Consumer's Reports and various other sources 
   to insure that my choice is wise.  If the company had a team of red-headed
   monkeys putting those suckers together, it wouldn't make any difference to
   me as long as the quality was outstanding.  Do our customers really deserve
   anything more than outstanding quality?

2) A few years back, when Congress was asked to undergo drug testing to 'set an
   example', they nearly tore the roof of the capital building.  Why should our
   rights to privacy be any less valued than theirs?  Certainly they are in a
   position at least equal to ours in regards to national security.

3) The last, and the one that bothers me the most, is that reading these replies
   brought me straight back to the days when I sat in front of a t.v. watching
   the Army/McCarthy hearings.  I'm old enough to remember the destruction that
   man caused; in most cases to perfectly innocent people.  I remember my uncle,
   a minister, being TERRIFIED because 'they' might discover he'd once played
   golf with Alger Hiss.  

This whole subject really does frighten me.  Yes, drugs are a horrible thing and
I'd like to see reasonable, legal steps taken to curb the problem.  No, I do NOT
think that should include cutting holes in our Bill of Rights or the 
Constitution.

Betty

> Digital is doing the right thing...for Digital (the company)

	But they are not!  If they were, they would charge for the extra effort
    and risks involved and there is no sign that they are doing that!

> This is a business, not a democracy.   If you want to change the civil 
> liberties infringement of drug testing, you must do so in the democracy,
> not the business.   Digital can only assume that if the US gov't says
> "thou shalt be free from drugs" to all of its vendors, then it must be
> because that is what "We the People" want.

	There are ways that a business can help -- make the civil liberties
    infringements cost money.  If the gov't says "thou shalt be free from drugs"
    make them pay the costs, don't just give it to em cause they asked!

Re Inflammatory remarks:

	Are you objecting because someone has finally suggested something that
    makes sense?  I have not suggested that drug testing be resisted, just that
    adequate compensation be made and all the potential risks be considered.
    Your suggestion that I don't trust DEC's senior management is also 
    misplaced.  The one's I don't trust are the anonymous lower level managers
    and government bureaucrats.

In the "Back to Reality" and "FWIW" departments...

From past experience, DoD drug testing compliance is a one time deal for
current employees, and a mandatory part of the physical exam for new 
hires.  One test...non-recurring.

So if you're worried that you'll test positive, stop using drugs for 90
days, take your test, and then do whatever you've been doing once you
test clean.   Without "reasonable suspicion," you won't be tested again,
and if you can't stop using drugs for a mere 90 days, then you DO have 
a problem.  If you CAN stop for 90 days, it a good indication that you 
have less of a problem than most chain smokers, and the DoD doesn't 
have to worry about you anyway.

Bob
P.S.   I believe that drug testing is unconstitutional, and do not 
       advocate its usage.  The person who made the analogy to 
       McCarthyism hit the nail on the head, exactly.  Write your
       Congressman... They do read their mail.

    re: .83 (Tom Blinn observing that .82 showed an "incredible lack of
    trust in Digital's senior management")
    
    Tom, I wouldn't use inflamatory language, but, I think an "incredible
    lack of trust in Digital's senior management" could be quite justified
    by the utter failure to communicate the decision TO TEST EMPLOYEES FOR
    DRUGS to all employees in a prompt and uniform way.  This is matter of
    calculated insensitivity or incompetence.  Pick one.
    
    As employee communications problem, doesn't this bother anyone else
    besides me?  Think of potential for speculation if we didn't have the
    original Weiss memo to reference.
    
    What other decisions have been made already(?) that affect all
    employees which we haven't been lucky enough to have leaked in a VAX
    Notes conference?

    Re .83:
    
    I don't think an incredible lack of trust is involved.  Any lack of
    trust would be quite credible, because abuse of authority would fit
    well into established human behavior.
    
    However, NO lack of trust is necessary for a person to simply request
    additional compensation for additional requests made of them not
    already in their job description.  And letting a person seek guarantees
    about what explorations will be made into their most private lives is
    simple human decency.
    
    
    				-- edp 

re .82,.83,.92

I agree that the failure to communicate the plan is a problem, but the fact
that there is a plan indicates that we cannot have faith in Digital's senior
management to "do the right thing."  If we had confidence they would "do
the right thing," this discussion would not be necessary, because drug
testing would not be an issue.

re .91

The problem with testing for new hires is that there is no defense against
false positives.  An employer is not required to inform an applicant why
he was turned down for a job.  When a company which tests applicants finds one
positive, they will simply inform him he does not meet the qualifications.
By telling the applicant why he was turned down, they open themselves to 
potential lawsuits andthe expense of re-testing.

re me

One of the main reasons I joined Digital was the "culture", "atmosphere", etc.:
the propensity to "do the right thing".  If the company stops doing the right
thing, I too will find employment elsewhere.  Many have said they would support
a drug testing plan which would be guaranteed to be fair and equitable.  What
fair and equitable way is there to invade someone's privacy?

If I have a performance problem on the job, I expect my manager to deal with
that problem.  If I have no such problem, what I do on my own time is my own
business.

- Dan.

>The problem with testing for new hires is that there is no defense against
>false positives.  An employer is not required to inform an applicant why
>he was turned down for a job.  When a company which tests applicants finds one
>positive, they will simply inform him he does not meet the qualifications.
>By telling the applicant why he was turned down, they open themselves to 
>potential lawsuits andthe expense of re-testing.

Let me reiterate.  The testing is *of* new hires, not *for* new hires.  The
testing is part of the standard DIS (Defence Investigative Service) background 
check prior to issuing a security clearance.  If you fail the test, you are
given another different test (blood as opposed to urine.)  The second test
is significantly more expensive than the first (by a factor of ten), but it
is unlikely that BOTH tests will indicate a FALSE positive.  Either test 
can have erronious results, but both tests used on the same individual are
highly reliable.  Accuracy of the tests is no longer a valid argument against 
drug testing.  Invasion of privacy is the valid concern.

Bob

    Re .95:
    
    > Either test can have erronious results, but both tests used on the
    > same individual are highly reliable.  Accuracy of the tests is no
    > longer a valid argument against drug testing.
    
    o How accurate are the tests?
    
    	o How often will the tests give false positives when there
    	  was no cause?  (I.e., a mistake in procedure or measurement
    	  errors, et cetera.)
    
    	o How many items are there that will _cause_ the tests to give
    	  false positives?  Note that the existence of items that cause
    	  false positives means repeated testing does NOT increase
    	  accuracy.
    
    o A 95% test followed up by an INDEPENDENT (unlikely) more accurate
      99% test still leaves ten thousand people being defamed and
      false accused.  Is ten thousand people not a valid concern?  One
      thousand?  A hundred?
    
    
    				-- edp

    Well, I'm concerned as I've mentioned, but I'm not planning to storm
    the Mill on 14 July... in my experience, DEC management has been known
    to do the right thing the first time or fix it later... let's give our
    upper management a chance.
    
    Marge

Re: .79  Donna

>An audience member asked some of the questions posed here.  Namely,
.
.
.
>-what will the criteria be for asking an employee to take the test
>
>Right now, Digital has no answers for these questions, except for the
>last one.  The criteria is - a performance problem where substance abuse
>is suspected.

If that turns out still to be true 5 years from now I'll breathe a huge sigh of
relief, and...

Re: .83  Tom

>        RE: .82 -- You're using inflammatory rhetoric, and you're showing
>        an incredible lack of trust in Digital's senior management to try
>        to "do what's right". 
        
...admit that I should have trusted Digital's senior management to try to
"do what's right"!

				-- Bob

    Whew!, it's amazing how many notes can build up in a few days...
    
    I work in the Warner Robins unit mentioned in .9+.  This all started
    when our contract came up for renewal around the end of October. If I
    remember correctly, the new 'drug-free' clause was enacted on October
    8th.  Our contract was the first to come up after the new  clause was
    enacted, but from what we heard, new ones piled up quickly.  We (the
    specialists) found out about the clause right at the end of our (then)
    current contract.  From what we were told, the clause was passed up the
    line by Legal, etc. all the way to the Executive Committee pretty
    quickly.  We would hear one day that DEC would accept the clause, and
    then not.  We didn't hear the final word until early January.  We
    did get a copy of the memo in .9.  I'll admit, I hadn't built up
    the nerve to post the memo and start WW Car Plan + 1.   One of the
    copies of the memo included a do not forward notice.
    
    As for anything after the memo, we have heard nothing.  As for details
    of the testing, we have heard nothing.  We also didn't hear about
    the DVN broadcast.  We were told at one point that we (the unit)
    might ALL get tested as a token gesture, while Digital resolves
    it's final corporate policy.  We haven't been tested yet....
    
    When this all started, I searched this file and the (then) current
    SOAPBOX notesfile for related info.  Everything that has been stated
    in this note was talked about in our unit (including the UM).  Our
    UM went to meetings, at least at the Area level, and even drafted
    a proposal which supposedly went all the way to the top.  Most of
    us talked about not taking the test.  But after a few weeks of steaming
    discussion, most of us decided we would prefer our jobs....
    
    But we are in a special situation, we all have security clearances.
    Each of us has accepted the possiblity of getting searched, tested,
    etc when we accepted the clearance.  (Personnally, I remember the
    searching part, but not the testing.)  In our case, if we were to
    refuse to be tested, and ask for a transfer, we would most likely
    lose our security clearance (for refusing the test).  This might
    not sound important to some of you, but to those who work in a
    government unit in a government district, the clearance helps....
    
    Locally, most of the local defense contractors have some kind of
    testing...  TRW tests only new hires.  As far as the Air Force is
    concerned, military personnel can be tested if suspected, or by
    order of commander... which means whenever they want.  The Civil
    Service personnel have no formal testing.  I heard there was a bill
    before Congress last year, but the civil service union (?) succeeded
    in defeating it.  Didn't I also hear that one of Reagan's cabinet
    members told reporters that he would refuse to be tested?  Even
    though I have a security clearance, I don't see how my PCSA/ALL-IN-1/
    DECnet managment duties provide more of a security risk than the
    drunk civil service mechanic working on an F-15.  (Yes I said drunk,
    _visibly_ drunk...  this is the civil service, where there only
    two ways to get fired,  shoot someone or come in two minutes late
    from lunch).  I would also like to see Gen Secord, Dan Quayle, and
    ? Towers standing next to me in the testing room.
    
    Back to Digital...  I'll try to post a copy of 'the clause' later.
    I really don't see how there is any alternative (within Digital)
    to the testing.  There is too much Government business to throw
    it to someone else.  Write your Congessman...
    
    Brett
    

    I have been working at DEC for 13 years (as of next week).
    I never thought it would come to this.
    
    Some employees will leave angrily.
    Some employees will submit quietly.
    Some employees will submit quietly and circulate resumes.
    Some employees will submit quietly, but not work as hard as before.
    Some potential employees we will never see.  They will be working
    for our competition.
    
re .35:
    The key word is, "in the workplace", not at home, not on vacation.
    There is no such thing as a "fair and equitable" drug testing program.
    The tests are far too inaccurate for that.

re .61: (Putting up a fight if you get fired for a false positive)
    
    That is only an option if you have *lots* of money to spend on lawyers.
    Even if you do, many employees do not.
    
re .76:
    In the case of marijuana, the tests may detect as far back as 1-2
    months.  They can also detect "passive" exposure, sometimes.  No
    more concerts, ever.                            
    
re .97:
    WHAT is happening on the 14th of JULY????????????????????????
    

    The question I want to ask is this...
    
    Does Blood test .eq. AIDS test?
    
    Simon

    July 14   =    Bastille Day  (when the French stormed the palace).
    

    RE: .77, .80

    >> for the ``other group of people''. . . .  None of the software
    >> engineers or engineering managers raised their collective eye brows.
    
    Alright, I will take the "None" back from my statement.  However,
    replacing it with "Few" should not change the essence of it.
    
    As both of you have pointed out, there might be some software engineers
    or engineering manager who will actively oppose the drug testing by the
    employer.  Unfortunately, unless they are in majority and/or are
    irreplaceable to digital, they will be unable to stop the impending
    changes in the tolerance of drug abuse and the resultant erosion of
    privacy and freedom.  And, no one, including person who might have
    lion's share in digital's success is irreplacable. I hope one example
    is still fresh in our mind. 
    
    As far as the SOAPBOX is concerned, I think its value lies in providing
    a necessary outlet for the day to day frustration to its patrons.  I
    doubt if members of that conference would be prepared to be judged by
    their contribution there.  Voicing objections in SOAPBOX is a big NOP.
    To put it bluntly, just because someone can argue passionately in
    the SOAPBOX is no guarantee that when the times comes he will quit digital
    rather than stand by his firm conviction.  Mind you, I am not saying
    there aren't any, but if there are, they are very few.  Please try not
    to get personal and refute the argument by saying how _you_ are
    different from the rest.  So let's not bring the SOAPBOX in to this
    discussion. 

- Vikas

.100>    
    >Some employees will leave angrily.
    >Some employees will submit quietly.
    >Some employees will submit quietly and circulate resumes.
    >Some employees will submit quietly, but not work as hard as before.
    >Some potential employees we will never see.  They will be working
    >for our competition.


forgot a couple cases:

Some employees will submit, "no big deal".
Some employees will submit, congratulating Digital and the country for having
an effective program for eliminating drugs in our lifetime.

The last two cases seem to be characteristic of people in my group and anyone
I've talked to other than here.

The false positives are a smoke screen.  What are you *really* afraid of?
What is the bottom line.  And where in the constitution does it guarantee that
you can't be tested or something can't be done for the good of the country?

ed

    Someone brought up the issue of security clearance.  I am little bit
    surprised that drug testing was not linked to it.  If I am not
    mistaken, government has routinely asked that the contracts be worked
    on only by people having certain type of clearance.  Given that, the
    drug testing would have formed the integral part of getting/keeping the
    clearance. 
    
    Please note that I am not advocating it, just stating that _from
    the government's point of view_ that would have been the easiest to
    do.
    
- Vikas

    Having a wife working for IBM I have all ready heard most of these
    same statements. Everybody talks about quiting but when the time
    comes, no one will. 
    
    The way I understand IBM drug policy is. Every 6 months the whole
    plant is tested. They have nurses for the women and male nurses
    for the men.(and you got it the ol pee in the bottle.) If you are
    on any medication you need a Doctor's note. They havent had any-
    body come up positive because of any other drug. People watch what
    they do when they know they will be tested. If you come up positive
    you have to go in for treatment. If you test out positive while
    on treatment or afterwards you could be terminated. They also went
    one further, if you are arrested for drugs or DUI and it make the
    paper you could also be terminated. The first thing that comes out
    in the paper is the company you work for.
    
    In some plant company's are coming up missing memorey chips, equip.,
    and other very expensive parts that people are selling to take care
    of there habits. 
    
    The one thing IBM is doing that I do not agree with on drug testing
    is managment is not being tested. They also put management in charge
    of saying who is to be tested. I would love to be tested for drugs
    and anything else the company wants as long as management on all
    levels is tested to! 
    
    Yes, Iam for drug testing but set up a fare system for everybody
    on all levels.

    What is the point of most of these replies? I understand the value
    of information regarding what other companies do. I understand the
    value of hard information about what DEC is doing or going to do.

    What is the value of debate over rightness or wrongness of drug
    testing in *this* conference? If you want to convince someone of
    your view then it would appear that the person you want to talk to
    is your manager and so on up the line to KO. Not grunts on the line
    like me who read this conference. What problem are you truing to solve?
    If the problem you want to solve is ending/starting drug testing then
    writing debate style notes here isn't going to do it. These are
    rhetorical questions and I hope no one answers them here (send mail if
    you must reply.) I just want to get people thinking about really acting
    rather then just adding me-too replies.

    Lets keep this topic (and conference) with a high percentage of hard
    information shall we? Thanks.

    ~Cliff

Re:  >Note 716.99>                         -< From Wonderful Robins... >-

>    in defeating it.  Didn't I also hear that one of Reagan's cabinet
>    members told reporters that he would refuse to be tested?  Even

Yes, it was George Schultz, Secretary of State.

Re:  >Note 716.68 >                          -< One who's been tested! >-

> As too the rest of the issues, I felt very good about the Air Forces saftey
>mechanisms.  About the only way I could see the process messing up was if one
>of the Doctors was deliberatly trying to sabatoge your sample and even them it
>would have been *very* tough for them to do it.
>
> As for false positive's, I believe the system was designed to take those into
>account also although I don't remember the details of this issue.
>
>Bottom line is if you want to protest the tests on moral grounds then so be it,
>but I think the procedural part of it is very safe (assuming Digital's test has
>the same safeguards as the Air Force test)

Yes, and that's why CBS' 60 Minutes about a year ago ran an interesting piece
on how the Air Force's testing program was rampant with erroneous results and
people were being drummed out who were not even users.  The labs were
(according to CBS) making errors all over the place, and guess who paid the
price for those errors ....

Sorry, I can not put my faith in systems with such "safeguards".

Re:  What to do

Again, write a lot of letters to your Congresspeople and elected
representatives.  That's where this change must begin.

>Yes, and that's why CBS' 60 Minutes about a year ago ran an interesting piece
>on how the Air Force's testing program was rampant with erroneous results and
>people were being drummed out who were not even users.  The labs were
>(according to CBS) making errors all over the place, and guess who paid the
>price for those errors ....

 Did not see said program...  The way it worked was *you* personally labeled
and sealed the sample and then personally double-checked the label with the
person collecting them...  The only way you could screw it up is if you forgot
your social security number (not possible for most military people!)  You then
personally witnessed the sample placed in the container which was then sealed
and put in the U.S. mail directly to a third party lab.  Any positve test would
result in a second more rigourous and expensive test being done...

Would be interested in how this system broke down...

/mike

    re: .103:	-< If IBM has drug testing, digital WILL follow >-
    
    	This isn't necessarily true.  IBM was, for years, a very repressive
    organization.  Thomas Watson Sr. and Thomas Watson Jr. both ran
    IBM as an organization that could and would heavily influence
    employees' lives, both corporate and private.   Ken Olsen, on the
    other hand ran, and runs Digital as an open, flexible company which
    values employees' freedom of choice.   IBM used to influence very
    heavily the kinds of cars an employee could drive -- even as late
    as the 1970's!   Can you imagine Ken Olsen telling you that you
    can't drive a 1972 Chevy Malibu because "it doesn't look
    professional"?!? 
    
    	For what it's worth, (and as an example of a company "overriding"
    the Constitutional rights of its employees), IBM used to have a policy
    of _No_Alcohol_Use_ by employees.   That meant that if you worked
    for IBM,  you could not drink alcoholic beverages _anywhere_.  Not
    at work, not at home, not at the IBM private country clubs, not
    ANYwhere.   This wasn't during Prohibition either.   Tom Watson
    Sr. believed in regulating nearly every aspect of his employees'
    lives, including what they wore, where they socialized, what cars
    they could and could not drive, etc.   How's THAT for a repressive
    corporate environment?
    
    -Monty-
    
    p.s.  Before y'all ask,  one of my sources is:
    
    	"A Study of Corporate Cultures in the Computer Industry -- IBM"
    
    			Prepared for
    
    			Systems and Communications
    			Central Quality Group
    			Digital Equipment Corporation
    			146 Main Street
    			Maynard, Massachusetts
    
    			by
    
    			Reesa E. Abrams, Consultant
    			Unicorn Consultants, Inc.
    			Lower Main St.
    			Freeport, Maine
    			207-865-3891
    
    			August, 1983
    
    			(Internal Use Only)

    I am now collecting a list of issues that exist on the matter of drug
    testing.  The intent is to identify each aspect of the matter which is
    of concern to anybody.  If there is sufficient interest, this will then
    be used to determine how much concern there is for each of the various
    issues.  After that, all of the common concerns could be used to draft
    a letter informing Digital of these issues and requesting more
    information.
    
    Below is a list of issues I have thought of or observed from others.
    Please add any others to the list.  Also let me know if any can be
    clarified or expanded.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    Digital did not consult with employees prior to deciding to subject
    them to drug testing, but were only informed after a decision to
    implement some form of testing was made. 

    Employees are concered about what requirements Digital feels free to
    place on its employees in the future. 

    The requirements for some employees' jobs will be changing, but there
    has been no mention of offering these employees placement elsewhere in
    the company if they choose not to accept the new requirements. 

    There is concern about what specific tests will be made and who will
    have access to those tests, and for how long.  There is also concern
    that tests made for specific drugs will, of scientific necessity,
    reveal other confidential information about employees. 

    There is also concern about the right of an employee to examine their
    tests results, challenge them, have errors corrected promptly and
    without prejudice, and have results verified by independent
    laboratories. 

    Some employees feel this is an invasion of privacy.  Does Digital feel
    it is invading its employees' privacy? 

    There is concern about the accuracy of tests, both from measurement and
    procedural errors and from consumption or use of legal and safe
    products. 

    We would like to know who may be tested and when. 

    What will happen to productive employees who test positive? 

    As employees and stockholders, there is concern that Digital has
    yielded to undue pressure and has opened the door to additional
    conditions in the future. 

    re .114:
    
    The major (and maybe _only_) concern I have is simply this:
    
    The concept of drug testing presumes that all employees are guilty
    until proven innocent;  which is the complete opposite of the
    very foundation of law in this country, and against the corporate
    culture with which we've become accustomed.   On Page 1 of "Digital
    and You", Ken Olsen writes, "We care about the rights and dignity
    of all employees...".
    
    -Monty-

    RE: .114
    
    One more for the list:
            
    Current drug testing methods cannot determine if the person is using
    drugs currently, only whether the person has used drugs sometime
    in the past.  I would (I think) be willing to submit to a test that
    showed whether I was using drugs *at work*.  The current tests can
    convict based on what you did at home last weekend.
    
    Steve
    

>    Current drug testing methods cannot determine if the person is using
>    drugs currently, only whether the person has used drugs sometime
>    in the past.

But isn't this what DFARS 252.223-7500 requires?  That Digital test for people
who use drugs at any time, not just currently?

/john

    RE: < Note 716.117 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >
                   -< We need to see what DEC agreed to do! >-


> But isn't this what DFARS 252.223-7500 requires?  That Digital test for people
> who use drugs at any time, not just currently?
  
    
    I have no idea what DFARS 252.223-7500 requires, but the DVN broadcast
    referred to a "drug-free workplace" which in my view does NOT have
    any bearing on what we do on our own time.
    
    Steve
    

re .118

    Define "our own time."  If I have a couple of sixpacks for breakfast,
    is it my own time?  If I show up at work half an hour later, is it
    nobody's business that I'm sloshed?

    Judging from the mood of the country in regard to drugs, I interpret
    "drug-free workplace" as "drug-user-free workplace."

Re .119:

>    Judging from the mood of the country in regard to drugs, I interpret
>    "drug-free workplace" as "drug-user-free workplace."
				    ^^^^

That returns us to the spectre of IBM forbidding employees from consuming
alcohol at any time, even when it cannot impact their work performance.  Would
that dictum apply to the sacramental use of wine during religious ceremonies?
Would you include that in the definition of "drug-user-free workplace"?
				/AHM/THX

                I'm going to disagree with .-1
                
                To me, a drug free workplace, means that no worker is
        under the influence WHILE THEY ARE AT WORK. It makes no
        difference (to use alchohol as an example) whether you imbibed
        on your time, or Digital's time, IF YOU ARE IMPAIRED ON
        DIGITAL's TIME! (Yes, I know the testing isn't addressing
        alchohol abuse, but it is a similiar situation in terms of
        employee impairment.)
                
                If you use a drug on your time, and are impairment free
        on Digital's time, I couldn't care less. If you ARE impaired on
        Digital's time, then I DEFINETLY DO CARE. You may subject me to
        possible physical harm, you may foul up a project, or you may
        present a bad image of the company to an outsider (while on
        company business). All these things affect ME as well as
        Digital. 
                
                As for my opinion on the testing, I am afraid of the
        possible results of the testing being misinterpreted, and/or
        being used in some negative way. I haven't made up my mind about
        whether or not I would agree with "perfect" testing.
                
                /s/     Bob

The following article just appeared in the Q3 issue of Personnel 
Perspectives, an internal publication for Personnel people:

**********************************************************************

DIGITAL GRAPPLES WITH DRUG ISSUE

In the U.S., changes in federal laws and regulations as well as 
changes in the expectations of customers and society in general 
are forcing companies to rethink their policies related to 
substance abuse.

Since alcohol and chemical dependencies are treatable diseases, 
Digital, through its Employee Assistance Program (EAP), makes 
various resources available to employees who may have a drug or 
alcohol problem.  Digital also has policies that cover situations 
when employees have performance problems or violate the company's 
expectations of appropriate conduct.  

In addition, Digital has policies that deal with employee conduct 
at Digital and customer work sites.  The company expects 
employees will conduct themselves in a safe and healthy way.  The 
use, possession of or distribution of illegal substances on 
Digital property or on a customer site could be cause for 
termination from the company.  

In other words, in the U.S., Digital's practice and policy 
regarding substance abuse has been:  
o  No illegal drugs are allowed on Digital property or at 
   customer sites (U.S. Personnel Policies and Procedures 6.24).
o  If substance abuse is suspected of contributing to a 
   performance problem, managers should focus on the performance 
   issue (U.S. PP&P 6.21).
o  Employees who seek help for chemical dependency problems are 
   given confidential help through EAP.
o  In the event that an employee appears to be incapacitated, 
   managers are to work with local Digital Health Services or 
   occupational health resource to seek a safe and confidential 
   solution.  Upon return to work, the employee is required to 
   provide an explanation and medical documentation (U.S. PP&P 
   4.35)

"This approach emphasizes self responsibility," notes Erline.  
"Digital believes employees should be responsible for their own 
behavior outside of as well as within the workplace.  Individual 
responsibility and trust are basic values of the company.  
Digital does not attempt to oversee what employees do on their 
own time."  

Now multiple outside influences are pressuring the company to 
commmit to instituting an effective program to ensure a drug-free 
workplace.  Many such requested programs include drug testing of 
Digital employees.

In the U.S., state and federal laws and regulations, and the 
courts' interpretations of them, are in conflict.  Legal 
protections for individual rights clash with requirements 
intended to protect public safety and reduce demand for and 
traffic in illegal drugs.  

Some state laws and provisions of state constitutions guarantee a 
limited right of individual privacy and may give people with 
substance abuse problems the same sort of protection as people 
with other kinds of handicaps.  But the federal government, (and 
the Departments of Defense and Transportation, in particular) 
insists that under certain circumstances drug testing is 
necessary for the public welfare -- for instance to ensure that 
pilots and truck drivers and people with access to classified 
information are not under the influence of drugs.  

"At this point, it is impossible to predict how far federal 
requirements will extend into the private sector," notes Paul 
Henrion, staff attorney, Personnel Law Group.  "We also cannot 
predict whether, in the various legal challenges to these laws 
and regulations, the courts will rule on the side of individual 
rights, or will decide that public safety is an overriding 
concern."

Right now, Digital is wrestling with these issues, trying to 
develop policies and practices that remain consistent with the 
company's basic values and yet meet these complex legal 
requirements.

The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, which is scheduled to become 
effective on March 18, 1989, requires that federal contractors 
certify to the contracting agency that they will provide a 
"drug-free workplace."  Some requirements of the law are:
o  publish a drug policy statement notifying employees that the 
   unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession 
   or use of a controlled substance in the workplace is 
   prohibited and explaining the consequences of violation;
o  establish a "drug-free awareness program" to inform employees 
   of dangers of drug use and available treatment programs;
   
In addition, the Department of Defense (DoD) now requires that a 
"Drug-Free Work Force" clause be added to contracts involving 
access to classified information.  This clause may also be 
included in unclassified contracts where the DoD contracting 
officer determines this is necessary.  The clause requires the 
contractor to institute and maintain a program that should 
include:  supervisory training, provisions for referral, an 
employee assistance program, personnel procedures for dealing 
with users of illegal drugs, and provisions for identifying 
illegal drug users.  It is expected that they will require drug 
testing on a controlled and carefully monitored basis, where this 
does not conflict with state law.  

This clause does not apply to contracts for commercial products 
unless there is access to classified information, but it does 
apply to all applicable contracts for commercial services.  
"Digital is working directly and through industry associations to 
have all commerical products and services excluded," says Cyndi 
Bloom, manager, U.S. Field Employee Relations.  "But it now looks 
probable that some Field Service and Software Service employees, 
who work on contracts that require them to have government 
security clearances, may have to undergo some form of drug 
testing."  The extent of this testing will be determined by a 
number of factors, including the nature of the work the employee 
performs under a specific contract, and the public health, safety 
or national security risk that could result from inadequate 
performance.

Similar Department of Transportation regulations, which apply for 
pilots and interstate truckers, are scheduled to go into effect 
in December 1989. 

This complex legal situation is still in flux.  

In addition to U.S. government laws and regulations, Digital has 
to respond to similar pressures from a variety of major 
commercial customers, including several Corporate Accounts, who 
are getting very selective about who they will allow on their 
premises to do work for them.  Some such customers have asked us 
to do drug testing of Field Service and Software Service 
employees to ensure that they are "drug-free."   So far, we have, 
through negotiation, been able to remove such stipulations from 
commercial service contracts, because of our existing policies 
and practices and our clear commitment to ensure that customers 
get the best possible service.  

Another kind of pressure comes from communities where Digital 
does business.  For instance, in Greenville, S.C., and Colorado 
Springs, Colo., nearly all the major companies in the area now do 
do drug testing.  "In other words, we're not just dealing with 
changes in federal law and regulations, but rather with a 
pervasive change in public attitude," observes Cyndi.  

"Drug abuse has been elevated to the position of a major public 
problem, and there is a growing expectation that large companies 
should help in the overall effort to deal with it," adds Erline.  
"This issue will be with us for years to come.  

"As a company, we are coming to grips with the fact that we are 
now so large that we are a microcosm of society, with all of the 
problems of society at large.  And also, as one of the world's 
major corporations, we are highly visible and subject to public 
as well as government pressure.  As we reformulate our policies 
to respond to these new conditions, we have to find ways to 
sustain our basic values." 

In this case, the crossroads in decision-making is the point 
where Digital must either change its policies or turn down 
important government business.  Digital is now trying to 
determine what changes we must make and how to implement them 
fairly and sensitively.  All anticipated changes will be 
communicated to employees through Personnel Perspectives, MGMT 
MEMO, LIVE WIRE and local newsletters as quickly as possible.  In 
addition, in Q4, Digital plans to distribute a Field training 
package to Field Personnel and then to Field managers.  Then a 
Field information package is planned for employees who deal with 
customers.

re: < Note 716.121 by REGENT::GETTYS "Bob Gettys N1BRM 235-8285" >

>                  . . . Yes, I know the testing isn't addressing
>        alchohol abuse . . . 

Oh, I don't know, Bob. I don't seem to recall seeing anywhere that
alcohol testing wasn't conceivable as part of this. (Although .122
does give the first hint that the intention is to identify "illegal"
drug use.)

-Jack

    It is now obvious that current social pressures are demanding quick and
    dirty solution to the perceived drug problem.  An obvious solution is
    to mandate drug testing for a section of population which is weak tp
    put up a fight.  Eventually more and more of the population would be
    covered. 
    
    I still stand by my earlier assertion.  IBM's current policies of
    testing the workers but not the management is one such example. The
    Transportation Secretary is advocating the drug testing of all airline
    pilots and interstate truckers but even a suggestion that he should
    submit himself for such a test is dismissed with outright indignation.
    BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE STILL DON'T GET MAD ABOUT SUCH A BLATANT ABUSE
    OF POWER.  We have lot to lose with a drunk and womanizing Secretary of
    Defence or a drugged Transportation Secretary than with a doped crazy
    truck driver. 
    
- Vikas

Re .114:

Add:

    No compensation has been offered to offset the loss of personal freedom
    and increased hazard to future employment that will result from drug
    testing.

    No safeguards have been provided to assure that other tests that could
    reveal confidential information about the employees are not added to the 
    drug test battery without prior notification.  [For that matter, it would
    help if a list of all tests to be applied, the method used, and what the 
    tests detect, was provided to each person tested.]

    No statement about what may be done with the results of the test have been
    provided.  At the minimum, drug test results should be handled in accordance
    with procedures for all other personal confidential information.

    re .121:

    I think you misinterpreted my statements in .119.

    I didn't mean that "drug-free workplace" means "drug-user-free" workplace
    *to me*, I meant that's what it probably means to Congress.  The
    mood of the country is very anti-drug.  Congress knows this, and has
    passed this "tough" anti-drug law.  Those of you who are having
    conniptions over the possibility of drug testing are a minority in
    the country as a whole.  As regards constitutional issues, the
    Supreme Court is becoming less and less sympathetic to individual
    rights, so I wouldn't expect them to overturn this law.  I predict
    that drug testing will become pervasive in the United States.

    To those of you who find this alarming, please don't shoot the
    messenger.  Despite what you may think, I haven't made up my mind
    about the propriety of drug testing.

re .114

I'd like a statement as to how wide any possible testing net 
might be.  Are we talking about the U.S. only, or a Corporate 
policy ?

Here in sunny Reading, as everywhere else in non-U.S. land, 
(which now makes up the majority of the Corporations's 
business) we are strictly controlled by Export Licensing rules
as one example. But in my opinion, it would border on paranoia 
for Digital to attempt to make drug-testing a world-wide issue !

Peter

    Re: [.96]:  Eric, I don't understand your math.  Let me suggest these
    numbers.  Last year the company had 122,000 employees, and hired 11,000
    people.  Assuming a first-pass test (urine) is 95% accurate, a
    second-pass test (blood) is 99% accurate, and assuming that the error
    consists entirely of false-positive results*: 
    
    	If all 122,000 Digital employees were tested once a year, there
    	would be 6,100 false positives requiring further screening;
    	of these, 61 would again be falsely labeled as drug users--about
    	one a week company-wide.
    
    	If all of 11,000 new hires were tested once, 550 would require
    	further screening, and five or six would be falsely labeled.
    
    Presumably, a much larger number would be correctly labeled as drug
    users and, eventually, terminated.  I speculate that once a week, some
    employee would be dragged, kicking and screaming, into a rehabilitation
    program, and forced to submit to weekly testing for some extended
    period to prove to the company that he or she is actually clean. 
    
    *This is a weak assumption.  There can be both false-positive and
     false-negative results.
    
    Re: [.101]:  Blood is a complex substance, and there are dozens
    of different tests that can be performed on it.  (This is my wife's
    job.)  AIDS testing, cholesterol testing, enzyme testing, blood-gas
    testing, and drug testing are different things entirely.
    
    Re: [.114]: To Eric's list I'd like to add the fact that drug-testing
    programs have been struck down in a number of courts as
    un-Constitutional.  The legal precedent is shaky.

    Separate from the drug testing-per se as issues:
    
    (a) How were/is/will be Digital's decisions on this manner commuicated
    to ALL employees, once decisions are made at the executive committee
    level?  Indeed, I have not recieved any official notice from the
    corporation on this matter yet.  (Although I know the Weiss memo is
    over a month old.)
    
    (b) What is the overriding issue here?  Doesn't Digital reject doing
    business where the customer requires as a condition of business,
    contractual clauses which are repugnant to the dignity of the employee
    as a person?  What made DFARS-xxx different?  Its size?
    
    (c) If the government can demand drug-testing of Digital, then what's
    to stop other customers, who may not even be under the DFARS-xxx terms,
    to demand to be given the same contractual terms?

    Just doing a compilation of people who seem to be at the
    decision-making level regarding the drug-free-workplace policy:
    
    Harvey Weiss, V.P. Government Systems
    Fred Beckette, FSG Human Resources Manager
    Erline Belton, Corporate Employee Relations Manager
    Cyndi Bloom, mgr., U.S. Field Employee Relations
    Paul Henrion, Personnel Law Group
    
    Thanks to Richard Seltzer for posting the Personnel Perspectives
    article in .122... I think it gives a balanced reading on the current
    situation facing DIGITAL.  
    
    Marge

    Re .129:
    
    The drug-testing-craze is national, not corporate.  I am opposed to
    drug-testing anywhere, not just in Digital, so my figures are based on
    national population. 
    
    
    				-- edp 

>Note 716.128 by RDGENG::DUNN -< U.S. only ? >-

>I'd like a statement as to how wide any possible testing net 
>might be.  Are we talking about the U.S. only, or a Corporate 
>policy ?

We don't yet even have a statement about how widespread it will be within the
U.S. yet.  We know it will affect people working on government contracts.  We
don't know if that includes people who work in a corporate, not a field,
environment but produce system software used on the contract.

It certainly doesn't seem fair for a government site using VAX PSI to be able
to demand testing of VMS Engineers in Spitbrook but not PSI Engineers in
Reading.  And since DEC is usually fair and equitable, I would expect either
both to be tested or neither to be tested.

/john

    John, I think you've seeing things with your own "worst case" spin on
    them.
    
    The spin I see is:
    
    (a) Digital is coping with drug abuse 'The Right Way', (ie the Employee
    Assistance Program)
    
    (b) We (ie Senior Digital Management) don't like it but, we gotta
    comply with what the US goverment demands of their suppliers, but we
    really don't like it, really; they got a gun to heads on this one.
    
    (c) So we'll do what they tell us BUT we'll test as FEW of you as we
    absolutely need too.

    Re: .110 (Pat)           -< Reagan officials refused >-

	>Yes, it was George Schultz, Secretary of State.
    
	could this represent a precedent for the grounds of refusal??
    
    ****
    
    Re: .113 (Monty)  -< IBM has precedent,  Digital does not. >-
    
	Hey Monty!
    
    	Is this available somewhere?  
    	(I need some bedtime reading material, ya'know 8^)
    
    	>"A Study of Corporate Cultures in the Computer Industry -- IBM"

    ****
    
    re .127 (Gerald):


    	> The mood of the country is very anti-drug.  Congress knows this,
        >  and has passed this "tough" anti-drug law.  
    
    Well Gerald, I must disagree with this statement... Congress is
    not owning up to it's responsibilities in this area.  The rate of
    interdiction of drug traffic is about 1 in 10 (ref: ABC news report
    interview with a INS border guard).  If 'C' were really serious
    about this, then more money would be allocated to the Coast Guard,
    DEA, INS Border Patrol for manpower.  At present they are trying
    to use high tech "toys" to provide surveillance ... which INS say's
    "...isn't cutting it."
    
    If this is a *WAR* then *WHY* are we attacking "our" own people, and not
    the source?!  Maybe it's time to let the CIA back into covert
    assinations to take out the Columbian drug lords [whose government
    is in their pocket!]...                 
    
Re .131

    > (b) What is the overriding issue here?  Doesn't Digital reject doing
    > business where the customer requires as a condition of business,
    > contractual clauses which are repugnant to the dignity of the employee
    > as a person?  What made DFARS-xxx different?  Its size?
      
    > (c) If the government can demand drug-testing of Digital, then what's
    > to stop other customers, who may not even be under the DFARS-xxx terms,
    > to demand to be given the same contractual terms?

    I believe a precedent is in place for these type of requests; Does
    Digital supply a resume to a customer on his/her request??  It doesn't
    happen out here (SWA).  
    
    Why should a request for a drug-free condition be any different?  
    Will that customer _not_ take "our" word for it and request us to
    submit a urine sample to "them" for their analysis??  Where do "we" 
    draw the line on un-reasonable requests??? 
    
    One of the things briefly touched on in this note was:  How far
    will Digital let a customer dictate T's & C's?  If "Big Bro." opens
    this Pandora's box -- where will it stop?!
    
    What about 5-10 years down the road...maybe your kids (I'm single)
    will be tested for drugs upon entering kindergarten.  Maybe, if
    the policy of drugtesting is considered weak, Congress ups the ante
    to *confiscate* your goods if you test positive (absolute)?!
    
    This whole thing gives me the willies!  There is plenty of evidence
    out there, that giving away personal liberties only leads to erosion
    of our basic constitutional rights.  
    
    I really hope that K.O. and Digital will have the have the faith
    to abide by *HIS* company's founding doctrine [lack of a better word] 
    to "Just Say NO".
    
Re: .136
    
    Why does Digital have to comply with a T & C for which no sound
    legal precedent exists (or does it)??  Can we not say "We will hold 
    that condition in abeyance until we've reviewed the U.S. Supreme Court 
    ruling on the matter."?
    
        Off my soapbox for now..
    
    J(im)p
    

    As the software manager of the unit in Warner Robins, GA refered to in
    .9 I thought I might be able to shed a little extra info beyond what is
    in .99. 
    
    When we received the DFAR clause on the contract it caught everyone
    off guard.  It took Digital almost 3 months to reply and I was working
    toward having to decline the contract altogether. At all levels
    of Digital I was told that it was going to be very difficult for
    Digital to except.  The message I was consistently given was the
    fact that it was against 'Digital Culture'.  
    
    All of the employees in the Unit were kept informed of the
    possibilities of the testing program. I would have done this anyway
    but in this case I was instructed by my management to keep the
    employees informed.  When the clause was excepted it was excepted
    for Warner Robins only and only for those individuals with clearances
    on this particular contract.
    
    What this means is that to date there is no policy except for 10
    people in GA. As far as I am concerned I conscented to the possibility
    when I got my clearance.
    
    I believe has done as best as it could in a bad situation. My
    experiences with the issue so far confirms that the culture is still
    intact on this.
    
    Digital has to develop a response to this and for businees we have
    to deal with it.  I believe what we do personally is another matter.
    I for one am firmly opposed and I will not sign the consent form
    and we will do my best to avoid the test.  The good news is that
    I do work for Digital and I believe they will do all that they can
    to protect my rights.
    
    On last point.  I have seen no mention of Abbie Hoffman's book 'Steal
    This Urine Test'. I strongly recommend it to all concerned and affected
    parties.  
    
    			'Steal This Urine Test'
    			Abbie Hoffman
    			Penguin Books
    			about $6
    
    Bill Lee
    

I sent the following note to Personnel this morning:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have become aware of significant resentment developing among DEC engineers 
over the prospect of mandatory drug testing required by the federal government
and agreed to by Digital.  This is particularly evident from the discussion
going on in the Notes conference on HUMAN::DIGITAL, topic number 716.

Personally, I do not object to being tested for drugs.  The specific issue
is of extremely low priority to me.  But there is a related issue that I
wish to raise.  Digital is a very special place to work, and the principal
reason for this is a corporate philosophy of respecting the integrity and
dignity of its engineers.  My concern is that these corporate values
should be consistently championed from the highest levels of Digital.

The conditions that the government is imposing on its contracts with Digital 
are not compatible with Digital's values.  The relationship between Digital 
and the government is a two-way street, and we hold more than a few high cards
in our hand.  I believe it is important for Digital's upper management to 
tell the government that we stand consistently behind our corporate values and 
integrity.  The message to Digital's employees that we trust each other and 
do not intend to compromise our values will serve to reinforce the high 
morale that underlines the quality of our work.

I hope that these factors can be kept in mind during the forthcoming 
negotiation and planning for Digital's policies on drug testing.

David Ellis -- Secure Systems Group -- BXB1-1/D03 -- DTN 293-5073 

    re .138:
    
    Bill, thanks for joining the discussion.  I am still a bit confused.
    Are you saying that the contract was signed over your protests and that
    your unit must deliver against that contract? or have I read that
    wrong?
    
    Also, you seem to be saying that drug testing comes with the territory
    if you are under security clearance, but you'd resist signing any
    waiver form.  
    
    If someone in your unit declines to be tested, will they be taken off
    the project and reassigned?
    
    regards,
    Marge

Re .127:

Please forgive me Gerald, I fear I also misinterpreted your .119.
				/AHM/THX

    This afternoon LKG happened to have a site meeting where John Adams,
    the site manager gives NAC folks an update on the NAC business and
    other topics of general interest.
    
    During Q & A time I asked about the drug testing policy. I was very
    surprised to hear that John had not heard of it. It scares me that
    a very senior manager (reports to Bill Johnson VP) had not heard
    of an issue which is probably the most significant employer employee
    relations issue to come up in a long time. I think this proves Pat
    Sweeney's point about the lack of communication and that policy
    could well be being made in a vacuum.
    I was pleased that he
    didn't fudge the question and he put Al Heintz (head of LKG personell)
    up on the stand to address my questions. I brought up the major
    concerns that have been articulated in this note.
    
    I was promised that at the next LKG site meeting they would come
    back with more information. I was rather distressed by the fact
    that Al Heintz stated that drug testing would be OK for Digital
    if it was done by other companies and that it was being done by
    other companies. Al did say that employee rights would be looked
    at very carefully before any policy was implemented.
    
    Dave

    Before anybody accuses me (or any of the other anti drug testing
    folks) of being pro drugs. I want to say that in any official
    letter to the powers that be I want to see no mention of. What an
    employee does in his own time is his own business.
    
    The crux of the issue is an employees right to privacy. And that
    an employer should not have the power to conduct a witchhunt.
    They may address employee performance problems but no more.
    
    Dave

    RE: .76
    
    This may be true, but the amount of the chemical consummed and the
    elapsed time have an effect on the individual's performance.  Pilots
    are restricted (required not to) from consuming any alcohol 24 hours
    prior to operating an aircraft (FAR circa 1970, updates?). 
    
    RE: .81
    
    PUNISH USERS?  What about compulsive [ overeaters | gamblers |
    alcoholics | smokers ] etc.?  I know you are aware of recent changes
    Digital has made with regard to the last group.  Granted, as a smoker,
    I am somewhat inconvenienced by this about twice a week.  Thank
    goodness you didn't have any say in the policy or the Designated
    Smoking Areas would have been Designated Firing Squad Areas.  (See .122
    (Treatable illness)) 
    
    RE: .82
    
    I have always heard that Digital's health plans, at least Hancock,
    have no "pre-existing condition" clauses.  What point are you trying
    to make?
    
    RE: .122
    
    I don't know about Greenville, but Colorado Springs is a rather
    large "military industrial complex" including a large military space
    control center, associated contractors, etc.
    
    RE: .142
    
    Sure, and because I jump in the fire, you should too?  My four year-old
    knows better than that, but then I taught him that so I guess you
    shouldn't be blamed.
    

    Many, many of these replies make reference to one's "right to privacy".
    
    I ask you to consider this question, both in terms of constitutional
    law, and in terms of the Digital way of working:
    
    "Whatever gave you the idea that one has a _right_ to privacy?"
    
    You won't find "privacy" mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and I
    very much doubt that you'll find "right to privacy" explicitly written
    in any Digital policy,  and you probably won't even find it written
    anywhere implicitly either.
    
    Just ponder the idea for a while:  Nobody in this country, nor in
    this company has a _right_ to privacy.   ...and just what IS privacy,
    anyway?

    -Monty-

    Re .145:
    
    The Supreme Court, other courts, and Congressional investigations have
    found that a right to privacy exists.  Supreme Court Justice Brandeis
    said we all are entitled "to be let alone".  Some consider Brandeis to
    be responsible for establishing the legal foundations of the right of
    privacy in the United Staes, in an 1890 paper (before he became a
    Supreme Court Justice) examining the intent of the country's founders
    and the relationship of privacy to the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of
    Rights does not explicitly say "privacy" because the nature of society
    at the time was different -- the concepts of eavesdropping, collecting
    and correlating massive amounts of information, and technological
    examination of bodily fluids did not exist two hundred years ago.
    Brandeis' assertion was that the authors wrote explicitly to protect
    the intrusions into privacy that they knew about at the time, and they
    wrote the ninth amendment to provide for what they did not know.
    
    Remember that government power comes from the people.  Whatever gave
    you the idea that anybody gave the government the power to invade their
    privacy?  You won't find "privacy" mentioned in the Constitution, so
    what makes you think the government has any powers in that area?
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    re .140
    
    To clarify my personal statements:
    
    My point was that I accepted the potential for testing when I agreed to
    receive a security clearance.  Just because I accept the potential does
    not mean I, personally, will accept the test. I will continue to keep
    my fingers crossed that they will not approach me with 'the cup'.  This
    is my own view only.  I fully understand the business need and the
    position of a company doing business with the Government.  My hope is
    that the company will support any decisions I make personally but I do
    not necessary expect the company to. 
    
    As far as what will happen to those who decline to be tested, I
    am not sure. My guess and my intent as the local manager is to do
    my  best to accomadate this and to place the person in a position
    that does to fall under the jurisdiction of this DFAR or eventual
    corporate policy.
    
    Bill
                                        

    re .147:
    
    Thanks, Bill... I know the position this must put you in.  By the way,
    congratulations on the contract.  It made the front page of the U.S.
    Field News for January/February and looks like you folks are doing a
    splendid job.  (I'll try to enter the article later.)  Impressive
    statistics:  "By leveraging both Enterprise Planning consulting and
    Digital's connectability, the Government Sales Unit won a $3.2 million
    contract to supply VAXstations and consulting services to the
    division." "So far in 1988, the Enterprise Planning strategy has netted
    the unit (Bill's unit) $8 million in systems and service revenue with
    another $8 million anticipated for the coming year."
    
    Marge

    RE .145

    The constitution does not grant rights.  It forbids the government to
    violate certain specific rights which are assumed to exist.  If rights
    were granted by constitutions, how could we have a quarrel with South
    Africa's treatment of blacks if their costitution does not guarantee
    them equal treatment?  (I have no knowledge of S. Africa's constitution,
    but you see my point.)

    If you caught someone peeking through your bedroom window, wouldn't you
    feel your rights had been violated?  And if not privacy then what
    right?

    - Dan.

I'm surprised that edp didn't quote the Fourth Amendment, which is the consti-
tutional basis for our right to privacy:

	The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
	papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
	shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
	probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
	describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
	be seized.

Pat mentions that I've been posing a worst case scenario (testing of VMS,
PSI, and ALL-IN-1 engineers).  He's right, I must say I have.  But until
someone posts DFARS 252.223-7500 and also the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988,
I have no way of guessing where it will end.  And even if it never affects
anyone I know, there's the worry of "when they came for my neighbor, I didn't
speak out."  Did your Senator/Representative vote for this?

And what's probable cause?  Poor performance might be caused by the loss of
a loved one.  Morning tardiness is one of the things I learned to look for in
the EAP training on drug abuse.  Morning tardiness is also a sign of a person
who likes to stay up late at night writing code when s/he won't be disturbed.

In another conference, I learned that we can add pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) to
the list of things that cause false positives, in this case for cocaine.

/john

Please bear in mind that when discussing the Constitution, the document
describes the explicit powers of the Government.  Any exclusion of
specific rights implies that the Gov't has no say in the matter.  In
a Constitutional Government, only those powers EXPLICITLY expressed in
the Constitution are available to the Gov't.  

The Bill of Rights was an addition to the original Constitution that 
explicitly spelled out those rights which the citizens were most
concerned with at the time.   It was added to aid in the Ratification 
process by making even the uneducated reader aware of what was already
contained within the main document.   The Bill of Rights is redundant.

The most significant single phrase involved in mattersthat could not be
forseen by the Framers of the Constitution, such as drug testing, is the 
"necessary and proper" clause, which states that Congress has the power 
to inact any laws "necessary and proper" to ensure the execution of their 
powers.   The 4th Amendment also comes up often (declaring the testing of 
bodily fluids as an unlawful search), but since the amendment is redundant,
so is the argument.

It'll be interesting to see how the Supreme Court reacts to these arguments,
but the two cases currently being deliberated upon do not deal with 
random drug testing per se, but with drug testing of specific public service 
oriented groups (pilots, truck drivers, etc.)

Re: .144 (Pilots and Alcohol)

The rule is minimum 8 hours from the consumption of the last drink, and never 
if ability is still impared.   ("Eight hours, bottle to throttle")

Bob

    re: .144
    
    In addition to 8 hours as Bob mentioned, the BAC limit for determining
    'imparement' is .04%, less than half used by most states for DWI.
    
    Bob

re 716.135

	More U.S. cultural imperialism, eh?  We already got the hamburger
	smells in Reading, now we have to have the urine tests as well?

			:-)   [sort of]

Swiped from another conference; many different authors:

   Hamantaschen: A wonderful pastry filled with honey and *lots* of poppy
   seeds. If you didn't know, eating poppy seeds causes you to test
   positive for opiate use.

   Ibuprofen can cause false positives for cannabis metabolites.

   While we're on the subject, various cold medicines cause false
   positives for other drugs. I believe that Sudofed causes a false
   positive for cocaine.

   Norepinephrine registers strongly positive for most members of the
   amphetamine family.  Norepinephrine is the active ingredient in Primatene
   asthma medicine, and probably other brands of asthma stuff.

   While we're on the subject, phenylpropanolamine (PPA) will cross test with 
   amphetamine (aka phenylpropylamine) in any test looking for metabolites in
   urine (as the common radio-immunoassay tests do). PPA is used in a lot of
   cold medications and diet pills.

   If norepinephrine cross tests with amphetamines, and if I remember it's 
   structure correctly it will, then there is a chance of a false positive
   without having taken any medication, as norepinephrine exists naturally in
   the body  (in other parts of the world, its called noradrenaline, but
   adrenaline is a trademark in the US :-)

   Cocaine follows a very different metabolic pathway, since it does not share
   the same basic structure as the above. It is metabolised and excreted as
   ecogine, which is what the RIA tests look for. Anything containing benzocaine
   (aka novocaine) or lidocaine will cross test positive. I'm not certain, but I
   suspect atropine based compounds could cross test as well.

   So, as long you don't have a cold, or a headache, or asthma, haven't been to
   the dentist lately or haven't eaten any bagels (or the delicious sounding
   pastries)....

    Yesterday I received in the mail the January/February issue of the
    Colorado ACLU newsletter.  The newsletter contains an interesting
    article by Marsha Faulconer on drug testing in the work place that
    pertains to this discussion.  The following is a summary of the
    contents of the article: 
    
    The article begins:
    
        One of the greatest erosions of civil liberties in this decade
        has been the transfer of police activity from the government
        to the private sector.  The fourth and fifth amendments of the
        Bill of Rights protect the individual from unreasonable search
        and seizure without probable cause by the government and from
        testifying against oneself.  With the advent of drug testing,
        however, private companies now routinely screen for substances
        in a person's body without probable cause and without having
        to abide by the limits of power that the government must abide
        by under the Bill of Rights.
    
    The author then presents some general arguments against drug testing in
    the work place.  First, drug tests do not measure impairment per se, and
    therefore are intrusions into employees' personal lives.  Tests do not
    measure when the drug was ingested, and in the case of marijuana the
    residue can last up to three weeks; in other words, use of a drug while
    on vacation or off work can still be measured by the drug test. 
    
    The author also raises the issue of false positives.  The EMIT test
    is the one most commonly used, and it is inaccurate 10% to 30% of
    the time.  Advil, Nuprin, and Midol test positive for THC with the
    EMIT test.  As a result, employees who test positive must prove
    their innocence, in violation of the principles of the U.S. Bill
    of rights.
    
    Furthermore, the tests can be used to reveal other, non-drug related
    personal information.  The District of Columbia police department
    used the urine samples to test for pregnancy, and promotions or
    job offers were delayed if a woman tested positive.  Also, legal
    drugs can be screened for, and an applicant could actually be denied
    a job for being on, for example, anti-depressants.
    
    However, as the author points out:
    
        Employers routinely search their employees' bodily fluids without
        probable cause when a government body could not.  (Although
        these cases are still being decided by the Reagan-stacked courts
        by justices who are not always wise to the Bill of Rights.)
        These companies presume guilt before innocence by asking employees
        to pee in a cup to prove their worthiness and ask employees
        to testify against themselves by having their fluids speak for
        them.
        
        This is frightening in America, where we expect privacy to be
        respected and we don't expect to check our constitutional rights
        at the door when we go to work.
    
    She goes on to mention that once an employer obtains a drug test
    result, the government can then turn around and subpoena the employer
    to obtain that information.  This happened in Florida, where
    the U.S. Attorney's office subpoenaed the University of Florida in
    Gainesville for the results of drug tests given to students in the
    athletic department.  This is despite promises to the students
    of confidentiality.  As the author points out, "since private companies
    do not have to abide by the limits of power set forth in the Bill
    of Rights when collecting information, the government has found
    this source of information too tempting."
    
    The rest of the article deals with proposed laws restricting the use of
    drug testing.  The city of Boulder, Colorado, is considering a tough
    ordinance that would prevent employers from requiring a blood, urine,
    or other bodily fluid or tissue test unless the employer has probable
    cause to believe that the employee is under the influence of an
    illegal drug or alcohol on the job.  The employee must be given the
    opportunity to explain any results of the test, and can request a
    second test.  Confirmatory tests must use the most accurate testing
    available by mass spectrometry or gas chromatography, and no portion
    may be used to test for pregnancy or evidence of any other medical
    condition.  Finally, drug test results are to be confidential from
    fellow employees and must not be included in the personnel file.
    
    There are similar restrictions for job applicants.  The probable
    cause condition is removed, but all advertisements of such positions
    must state that a drug test is required.  Furthermore, such tests
    may be be required unless other restrictions are met.
    
    This law would possibly be the strongest in the country, and sounds
    like a law that other communities could emulate.  However, the Boulder
    law has not passed yet, and it may be watered down. 
    
    The article pointed out that many businesses favor this type of
    law.  A woman in California won a $425,000 award by suing a company
    who fired her for refusing to be tested.  There was a similar award
    in Massachusetts.  Many in the business community do not want to
    have to face this sort of lawsuit.
    
    -- Mike

This is a writeup of the Robins Air Force Base contract in Warner 
Robins, Ga. referenced in the Harvey Weiss memo in reply .9

Source:  U.S. Field News, January/February 1989

	     "Enterprise Planning leverages Air Force contract"

    Picture caption: "Enterprise Planning Services helped leverage a
    multi-million dollar contract at Georgia's Robins Air Force Base."
    
As any government account manager can attest, penetrating the military 
mindset to deliver the right system solution and ensure long-term 
customer loyalty is no easy feat.  Recently, however, the Georgia 
Government Sales and Software Services units did just that by leveraging 
Digital's Enterprise Services in their account strategy.

Enterprise Planning is a family of consulting services that support 
customers in all phases of defining and implementing enterprise-wide 
solutions.  As described by Aubrey Bone, Georgia Government Sales 
manager, "Selling the concept of planning is really how we can 
differentiate Digital from other vendors with large accounts like the 
military."

This concept proved exceptionally successful for Digital's Sales unit's 
efforts at Robins Air Froce Base in Warner Robins, Ga., this year.  In 
October, Software Services presented its final report on a year-long 
Enterprise Planning study for the base's Materials Management 
Directorate.  So far in 1988, the Enterprise Planning strategy has 
netted the unit $8 million in systems and service revenue with another 
$8 million anticipated for the coming year.

Surprisingly, the multi-year, multi-million dollar contract began just a 
year-and-a-half ago with a request from the base's Vehicle Management 
Division for a system to automate its vehicle specification generation.  
Realizing that without any experience with computers, the division was 
asking for problems by just installing systems, the Digital Sales 
manager called in Software Services.

"The military tends to lag behind industry in terms of automation," 
explains Bill Lee, Software Services unit manager.  "Often, they don't 
have the expertise at hand to make the most of their computing 
resources, so we decided to first sell them on the idea of a needs 
assessment.

"Enterprise Planning is a relatively new concept," Bill continues. "As 
this project was getting started a year ago, it was an even newer 
concept.  However, all the resources needed to implement a long-term 
proposal for the Air Force were already in place."

Three-month study

To start selling the Air Force on a needs assessment plan, Bill called 
on the Atlanta Solutions Integration Center (SIC).  Ann Day, a 
consultant working for Bill, then developed a plan.  In June 1987, the 
team proposed a low-cost, three-month study of the division's 
operations.

Although the Air Force staff members were somewhat skeptical about 
Digital's capabilities and objectivity to perform such a study, they 
liked what they saw in the proposal.  The division's colonel brought the 
plan to the head of the directorate of which they were a part.

The timing of the request could not have been more fortunate.  The 
directorage had been searching for an information management system.  
IBM had installed a PROFS office automation pilot system, which the Air 
Force rejected two months into the six-month trial run.  Given the 
situation, Digital's idea of providing consulting to assess needs and 
make recommendations appealed to the directorate's commanding officer.

Shortly after the first presentation, Digital was asked to expand the 
initial proposal to encompass a directorate-wide study, including a 
pilot installation.  If the Air Force accepted the new proposal, the 
contract would total $900,000 for the services of Ann Day and a 
Software Services team to install a pilot system for 500 users.

"In order to be successful, the consultants had to get the directorate 
command to think in terms outside the normal military mindset," says 
Bill.  "Ordinarily, the military tends to be conservative, preferring to 
take small steps rather than large ones.  The challenge was to get them 
to move ahead aggressively to get them to where they needed to be.  We 
had to convince them their current organization was not meeting their 
needs and we cited specific instances to do this."

According to Bill, Software Services' approach to the situation was 
uniquely instrumental in gaining the credibility Digital needed to 
convince the Air Force to move ahead aggressively.  Over two months, Ann 
Day interviewed 163 managers within the directorate, asking them 
questions about their operation and its challenges.

Getting the go-ahead

When Ann presented her assessment of the directorate's organization, the 
officers were amazed by the thoroughness and accuracy of the picture she 
showed them.  As a result, they gave Digital the go-ahead for a 
year-long Enterprise Planning study to detail the directorate's needs 
and plot a three-year implementation plan.

Beginning in September 1987, Ann started evaluating and assessing the 
directorate's needs, making ongoing recommendations as the year 
progressed.  At the same time, the Software Services team was building 
the directorate's pilot system.  Combining a small VAX system with 
All-IN-1 and Digital's Personal Computer Architecture, the team created 
a network using much of the Air Force's existing PCs, terminals and 
wiring.

By the spring of 1988, the influence of Enterprise Planning could be 
seen in the directorate.  At that time, another directorate division, 
Systems Engineering, began shopping for engineering workstations.  The 
directorate command stipulated that the systems they bought had to be 
able to connect with other directorate divisions.

Aubrey Bone, who worked on the sale to Systems Engineering, describes 
what happened.  "We took their ideas and looked at them from every angle 
to provide the right solution for their needs.  This division, like the 
others, needed professional support to get them the most from their 
computer investment and again we recommended they use Software Services' 
consulting expertise.

"This wasn't difficult since there were already users in the directorate 
that would endorse the idea," Aubrey explains.  "Consulting really gives 
customers confidence so they will more fully automate than they would 
have without it.  They know there is someone on hand with the expertise 
to ensure the systems implementation and effectiveness."

By leveraging both Enterprise Planning consulting and Digital's 
connectability, the Government Sales Unit won a $3.2 million contract to 
supply VAXstations and consulting services to the division.

On the directorate level, as the year-long planning study drew to a 
close this past fall, Ann Day made her final report and recommendations 
to the Air Force.  Due to her work and that of the entire Government 
Unit, the Air Force directed that all recommendations made in the 
report be implemented.  In addition, they directed that the original 
pilot be expanded to the entire 3,000-member directorate staff.

The Robins AFB Materials Management Directorage is now a model of 
automation for other Air Force installations.  Furthermore, Ann Day now 
sits on two advisory committees for the government--a first for any 
computer vendor.

"The real benefit of the Enterprise Planning approach is the potential 
to realize significant revenue in such a relatively short time," says 
Bill.  "We went from an initial consulting contract with Robins to 
potentially $16 million in revenue in just a two-year period.  In the 
process, we have given them step-by-step guidelines to make their 
information management system competitive with any of those in private 
industry.

"Enterprise Planning has not only opened doors to other directorates at 
the base for us, it has ensured Digital's presence there for years to 
come," Bill notes.  "We consider Enterprise Planning to be very 
successful."

    re .155:
    
    OK, the gist of the article is to lobby your elected representatives to
    pass laws to properly limit private-sector drug tests.  That's the only
    sure way to handle this thing. It's the U.S. Government that is pushing
    these tests. Since our elected officials _are_ the government, let's
    get them to do the right thing and get rid of the contract clauses that
    call for these intrusive tests.
    
    
    As far as drug testing at Digital is concerned, it sounds like Digital
    is trying to do the right thing (with the possible exception of
    getting the word out about accepting the Air Force contract provision).
    

        A big part of the government was never elected by anyone. The vast
        majority of federal government employees are employees who were
        hired to do a job, not elected.  The same is true of most state
        and local governments.
        
        It is not uncommon for the legislative branch of the federal
        government to be unaware of some of the things that the executive
        branch is doing.  Did your congressperson know what Oliver North
        was doing in the "Iran-Contra" affair until it became public
        knowledge? 
        
        For those who either never learned or have forgotten how the
        federal gummint is structured, the legislative branch is the
        Senate and the House of Representatives, folks that you vote
        for directly.
        
        The executive branch is the President and all of his appointees,
        including the cabinet and the massive federal bureaucracies they
        manage, such as the Department of Defense and the Department of
        Transportation -- and you did *not* elect these folks, except,
        indirectly, the President and Vice-President.  (Technically, you
        voted for electors, and they elected the President and
        Vice-President.) 
        
        There's also the judicial branch, including the Supreme Court, but
        you don't elect them, and they aren't particularly responsive to
        political pressure. 
        
        If you think what the executive branch is doing is wrong, then be
        sure to let the legislative branch know about it.  Letters are
        effective.  But represent yourself as a citizen and voter, and
        focus on general issues, such as your right of privacy as a
        citizen.  
        
        Unless it's your job to represent Digital to the government, you
        might be wise to avoid mentioning Digital in your letter.
        
        Since this conference is for Digital Internal Use Only, please do
        not do anything foolish, such as extracting any part of this
        conference and mailing it to your congressperson. 
        
        Thanks for using your good judgement.
        
        Tom

            PART 52--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
    
    52.233-7500   Drug-Free Work Force.
    
    	As prescribed in 23.7504, insert the following clause:
    
                       DRUG-FREE WORK FORCE (SEP 1988)
    
    	(a)  Definitions.  "Illegal drugs," as used in this clause,
    means controlled sugstances included in Schedule I and II, as defined
    by section 802(6) of Title 21 of the United States Code, the possession
    of which is unlawful under Chapter 13 of that Title.  The term "illegal
    drugs" does not mean the use of a controlled substance pursuant
    to a valid prescription or other uses authorized by law.
    
    	"Employee in a sensitive position," as used in this clause,
    means an employee who has been granted access to classified
    information; or emplyees in other positions that the Contractor
    determines involve national security, health or safety, or functions
    other than the foregoing requiring a high degree of trust and
    confidence.
    
    	(b)  The Contractor agrees to institute and maintain a program
    for achieving the objective of a drug-free work force.  While this
    clause defines criteria for such a program, Contractors are encouraged
    to implement alternative approaches comparable to the criteria in
    paragraph (c) below that are designed to achieve the objectives
    of this clause.
    
    	(c)  Contractor programs shall include the following, or
    appropriate alternatives:
    
    	(1) Employee assistance programs emphasizing high level direction,
    education, counseling, rehabilitation, and coordination with available
    community resources;
    
    	(2)  Supervisory training to assist in identifying and addressing
    illegal drug use by Contractor employees;
    
    	(3)  Provision for self-referals as well as supervisory referrals
    to treatment with maximum respect for individual confidentiality
    consistent with safety and security issues;
    
    	(4)  Provision for identifying illegal drug users, including
    testing on a controlled and carefully monitored basis.  Employee
    drug testing programs shall be established taking account of the
    following:
    
    	(i)  The Contractor shall establish a program that provides
    for testing for the use of illegal drugs by employees in sensitive
    positions.  The extent of and criteria for such testing shall be
    determined by the Contractor based on considerations that include
    the nature of the work being performed under the contract, the
    employee's duties, the efficient use of Contractor resources, and
    the risks to health, safety, or national security that could result
    from the failure of an employee adequately to discharge his or her
    position.
    
    	(ii)  In addition, the Contractor may establish a program for
    employee drug testing--
    
    	(A)  When there is a reasonable suspicion that an employee uses
    illegal drugs; or
    
    	(B)  When an employee has been involved in an accident or unsafe
    practice;
    
    	(C)  As part of or as a follow-up to counseling or rehabilitation
    for illegal drug use;
    
    	(D) As part of a voluntary employee drug testing program.
    
    	(iii)  The Contractor may establish a program to test applicants
    for employment for illegal drug use.
    
    	(iv)  For the purpose of administering this clause, testing
    for illegal drugs may be limited to those substances for which testing
    is prescribed vy section 2.1 of Subpart B of the "Mandatory Guidelines
    for Federal Workplace Drug Testing," (53 FR 11980 (April 11, 1988)),
    issued by the Department of Health and Human Services.
    
    	(d)  Contractors shall adopt appropriate personnel procedures
    to deal with employees who are found to be useing drugs illegally.
     Contractors shall not allow any employee to remain on duty or perform
    in a sensitive position who is found to use illegal drugs until
    such time as the Contractor,  in accourdance with procedures
    established by the Contractor, determines that the employee may
    perform in such a position.
    
    	(e)  The provisions of this clause pertaining to drug testing
    programs shall not apply to the extent they are inconsistent with
    state or local law, or with an existing collective bargaining
    agreement;  provided that with respect to the latter, the Contractor
    agrees that those issues that are in conflict will be a subject
    of negotiation at the next collective bargaining session.
    
                               (End of clause)

    One thing has been mentioned in passing, but not really discussed in
    this note string.
    
    For years Digital has declined to become a government prime,
    voluntarily passing up millions, no billions, of potential dollars. The
    only reason I've ever heard for this was the fact that, since
    government primes work on a cost-plus basis, Digital would have to open
    our books to the government in order to be a prime.  Ken simply has not
    been willing to do that.  It has cost us untold amounts of money.  I
    have always respected that decision -- more than any other reason,
    because the message to me as an employee was that Digital would not let
    anyone, including the government, tell us how we have to do business. 
    
    Now we hear that the government is going to require drug testing,
    and Digital is going to comply because not complying would cost
    us a great deal of money.  Drug testing is totally counter to our
    culture, and is putting many if not most of our employees in a real
    dilemma in terms of continuing our careers here.  But the message
    to us is that the potential dollars are simply too important to
    let the rights of our people get in the way.
    
    So...  What I'm hearing then is that the privacy and confidentiality
    of our books is more important than the privacy and confidentiality
    of our people.  The dollars outweigh the importance of the employees
    (often touted by management as "our most valuable resource").
    
    What is wrong with this picture?
    
    							Pat

    Re: .160
    
    I raised the issue of cost+ contracts in .88.  I also would like to
    hear Ken on the subject of interference with our accounting practices
    vs interference with our privacy. 

re: .159
    Thanks very much for entering the regulation. It made interesting reading.

    But, seeing as how it was probably the first government regulation I've
  ever read, I have some questions.

    The wording of the regulation in many areas seemed pretty open ended,
  specifying what a contractor "may" do, but not specifying what they
  would "be required" to do. Is this a common practice in such regulations,
  and if so, what does "may" really mean? Even in the last section which
  spoke about "where not in conflict with currently standing labor contract
  guidelines", they wording only said that contractors would have to have
  this plan included in future negotiations, but not necessarily that the
  contractor should then prevail in that area in said negotiations. E.G.
    Contractor: "We've been asked by the gov't to implement a drug testing
		 program"
    Labor: "No way, Jose!"
    Contractor: (Pause.) "OK - let's move on to the next point."

-Jack

    re: .160
    
    To be fair, not acting as a prime contractor to the government has
    probably not hurt us terribly.  We've still been able to sell our
    services and hardware as a sub-contractor.
    
    If we were suddenly unable to sell anything to the government because
    we refused to comply with this regulation, how much would it cost?
    My guess is that measured in direct government contracts, it would
    be significant but perhaps suvivable.
    
    But consider the following:  What is the cost of business lost from 
    government prime contractors such as General Electric, Lockheed, 
    Boeing, Fairchild, United Technologies, Harris, RCA, Hughes, (T.I.?
    I know who you are Pat, do you know me?!) etc. because of
    non-compliance?  I am supposing that if we can't sell a VAX directly 
    to the government because it was made by drug-crazed hippies (ha!), 
    then GE can't sell them the VAX either.  My guess is we all end
    up working for DG and IBM after a few months, and get drug-tested 
    anyway.
    
    Speaking only for myself, I'm not going to blame DEC for wanting
    to survive.  I have a lot tied up in my career here and have no
    desire to blow it away in a futile gesture of protest.  If this was
    the companies idea, I might feel quite a bit different.  I'm satisifed
    so far that the corporation is doing the "right thing".  Part of
    that includes preserving my livelyhood.
    
    Al
    

Re: .163

>    My guess is we all end up working for DG and IBM after a few months, and
>    get drug-tested anyway.

Not me, Al.  I'd rather flip hamburgers than submit to a drug test!  Seriously.
It's more likely, though, that I'd find a job with some small company that
doesn't do business with the government.

>    Speaking only for myself, I'm not going to blame DEC for wanting
>    to survive.

Neither will I, I guess.  My beef is with the government, not DEC.  (I'll be
disappointed that DEC turned out to be "just another company", though.)

>    I have a lot tied up in my career here and have no
>    desire to blow it away in a futile gesture of protest.

I admit that letting myself get fired for not taking a drug test probably
would/will turn out to be a "futile gesture", but some principles are worth
sacrificing for, and I think one of those principles is the right of citizens
to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches, whether carried
out directly by the government or indirectly through its massive bargaining
power in contract negotiations.

Yes, I'll write my senators and my U.S. representative, but I'll also make
a statement by passively resisting this attack on our freedom.

				-- Bob

                               Federal Register
                            Volume 53, Number 188
                        Wednesday, September 28, 1988
                            Rules and Regulations
                             Pages 37763 to 37765

    Department of Defense

    48 CFR Parts 223 and 252

    Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement;
    Drug-Free Work Force

    AGENCY:  Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:  Interim rule and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:  The interim rules states DoD's policy on a drug-free work
    force and provides a contract clauses [sic] for use with solicitations
    and contracts meeting specific criteria.

    EFFECTIVE DATE:  October 31, 1988, for solicitations and resulting
    contracts issued on or after that date that meet the criteria in
    section 223.7504.  To the extent possible, Contracting Officers should
    include the clause in solicitations before October 31, 1988.

    COMMENT DATE:  Comments on the interim rule should be submitted to the
    address shown below on or before November 28, 1988.

    ADDRESS:  Interested parties should submit written comments to: 
    Defense Acquisition Regulatory Council, ATTN: Mr. Charles W. Lloyd,
    Executive Secretary, DAR Council, ODASD (P)/DARs c/o OASD (P&L (MRS),
    Room 3D139, The Pentagon, Washington, DC, 20301-3062.  [Closing
    parenthesis is missing in the original.]  Please cite DAR Case 88-83 in
    all correspondence related to this subject.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Gurden [sic] E. Drake, Office of
    the Assistant General Counsel (Logistics), (202) 697-6921.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Background

    The Secretary of Defense has issued policy concerning use of illegal
    drugs by the American work force as it affects defense contracts.  This
    interim rule sets forth that policy and provides for use of a contract
    clause in those acquisitions involving access to classified information
    or where the contracting officer determines that such a clause is
    necessary in the interest of National Security, health, or safety.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This interim rule is not expected to have significant economic impact
    on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the
    Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., because the impact in
    context of the application criteria should be minimal on small
    businesses.  An initial regulatory flexibility analysis has therefore
    not been performed.  Comments are invited from small businesses and
    other interested parties.  Comments from small entities concerning the
    affect DFARS Subpart will also be considered in accordance with Section
    610 of the Act.  Such comments must be submitted separately and cite
    DAR Case 88-610 in correspondence.

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because this rule does not
    impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements or collection of
    information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public which
    require OMB approval under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    D. Determination to Issue an Interim Rule

    A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of
    Defense to issue this coverage.  This action is necessary to implement
    policy from the Office of the Secretary of Defense in keeping with
    Federal goals to eliminate the use of illegal drugs and provide for a
    drug-free work force.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 223 and 252

    Government procurement.

    Charles W. Lloyd,
    _Executive Secretary, Defense Acquisition Regulatory Council_.

    Therefore, 48 CFR Parts 223 and 252 are amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 223 and 252 continues to
    read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 301, 10 U.S.C. 2202, DoD Directive 5000.35, and
    DoD FAR Supplement 201.301.

    PART 223 -- ENVIRONMENT, CONSERVATION AND OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY

    2. A new Subpart 223.75, consisting of sections 223.7500 through
    23.7504, is added to read as follows:

    Subpart 223.75 -- Drug-Free Work Force

    Sec.
    223.7500  Scope of subpart.
    223.7501  Policy.
    223.7502  Definitions.
    223.7503  General.
    223.7504  Contract clause.

    Subpart 223.75 -- Drug-Free Work Force

    223.7500  Scope of subpart.

    This subpart prescribes policies and procedures concerning drug abuse
    as it impacts on the performance of defense contracts.  Departments may
    establish special procedures as they determine necessary to satisfy
    their mission requirements.

    23.7501  Policy.

    It is the policy of the Department of Defense that defense contracts
    shall maintain a program for achieving a drug-free work force.

    223.7502  Definitions.

    "Illegal drugs," as used in this subpart, means controlled substances
    included in Schedule I and II, as defined by section 802(6) of Title 21
    of the United States Code, the possession of which is unlawful under
    Chapter 13 of that Title.  The term "illegal drugs" does not mean the
    use of a controlled substance pursuant to a valid prescription or other
    uses authorized by law.

    "Employee in a sensitive position," as used in this subpart, means an
    employee who has been granted access to classified information; or
    employees in other positions that the contractor determines involve
    National Security, health or safety, or functions other than the
    foregoing requiring a high degree of trust and confidence.

    223.7503  General.

    (a) The use of illegal drugs, on or off duty, is inconsistent with
    law-abiding behavior expected of all citizens.  Employees who use
    illegal drugs, on or off duty, tend to be less productive, less
    reliable, and prone to greater absenteeism resulting in the potential
    for increased cost, delay, and risk to the government contract.

    (b) The use of illegal drugs, on or off duty, by employees can impair
    the ability of those employees to perform tasks that are critical to
    proper contract performance and can also result in the potential for
    accidents on duty and for failures that can pose a serious threat to
    national security, health, and safety.

    (c) The use of illegal drugs, on or off duty, by employees in certain
    positions can result in less than the complete reliability, stability,
    and good judgment that are consistent with access to sensitive
    information.  Use of illegal drugs also creates the possibility of
    coercion, influence, and irresponsible action under pressure that may
    pose a serious risk to national security, and health and safety.

    223.7504  Contract clause.

    The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 252.223-7500 in all
    solicitations and contracts that meet the following criteria:

    (a) All contracts involving access to classified information;

    (b) Any other contract when the contracting officer determines that
    inclusion of the clause is necessary for reasons of national security
    or for the purpose of protecting the health or safety of those using or
    affected by the product or of the performance of the contract (except
    for commercial or commercial-type products (see FAR 11.001)).

    (c) This clause does not apply to a contract, or to that part of a
    contract, that is to be performed outside of the United States, its
    territories, and possessions, except as otherwise determined by the
    contracting officer.

    PART 252 -- SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

    3. Section 252.223-7500 is added to read as follows:

    252.223-7500  Drug-free work force.

    As prescribed in 223.7504, insert the following clause:

    Drug-Free Work Force (Sep 1988)

    (a) Definitions.  "Illegal drugs," as used in this clause, means
    controlled substances included in Schedule I and II, as defined by
    section 802(6) of Title 21 of the United States Code, the possession of
    which is unlawful under Chapter 13 of that Title.  The term "illegal
    drugs" does not mean the use of a controlled substance pursuant to a
    valid prescription or other uses authorized by law.

    "Employee in a sensitive position," as used in this clause, means an
    employee who has been granted access to classified information; or
    employees in other positions that the contractor determines involve
    national security, health or safety, or functions other than the
    foregoing requiring a high degree of trust and confidence.

    (b) The Contractor agrees to institute and maintain a program for
    achieving the objective of a drug-free work force.  While this clause
    defines criteria for such a program, Contractors are encouraged to
    implement alternative approaches comparable to the criteria in
    paragraph (c) below that are designed to achieve the objectives of this
    clause.

    (c) Contractor programs shall include the following, or appropriate
    alternatives:

    (1) Employee assistance programs emphasizing high level directions,
    education, counseling, rehabilitation, and coordination with available
    community resources;

    (2) Supervisory training to assist in identifying and addressing
    illegal drug use by Contractor employees;

    (3) Provision for self-referrals as well as supervisory referrals to
    treatment with maximum respect for individual confidentiality
    consistent with safety and security issues;

    (4) Provision for identifying illegal drug users, including testing on
    a controlled and carefully monitored basis.  Employee drug testing
    programs shall be established taking account of the following:

    (i) The Contractor shall establish a program that provides for testing
    for the use of illegal drugs by employees in sensitive positions.  The
    extent of and criteria for such testing shall be determined by the
    Contractor based on considerations that include the nature of the work
    being performed under the contract, the employee's duties, the
    efficient use of Contractor resources, and the risks to public health,
    safety, national security [sic] that could result from the failure of
    an employee adequately to discharge his or her position.

    (ii) In addition, the Contract may establish a program for employee
    drug testing --

    (A) When there is reasonable suspicion that an employee uses illegal
    drugs; or

    (B) When an employee has been involved in an accident or unsafe
    practice;

    (C) As part of or as a follow-up to counseling or rehabilitation for
    illegal drug use;

    (D) As part of a voluntary employee drug testing program.

    (iii) The Contractor may establish a program to test applicants for
    employment for illegal drug use.

    (iv) For the purpose of administering this clause, testing for illegal
    drugs may be limited to those substances for which testing is
    prescribed by section 2.1 of Subpart B of the "Mandatory Guidelines for
    Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs," (53 FR 11980 (April 11,
    1988)), issued by the Department of Health and Human Services.

    (d) Contractors shall adopt appropriate personnel procedures to deal
    with employees who are found to be using drugs illegally.  Contracts
    shall not allow any employee to remain on duty or perform in a
    sensitive position who is found to use illegal drugs until such time as
    the contractor, in accordance with procedures established by the
    contractor, determines that the employee may perform in such a
    position.

    (e) The provisions of this clause pertaining to drug testing programs
    shall not apply to the extent they are inconsistent with state or local
    law, or with an existing collective bargaining agreement; provided that
    with respect to the latter, the Contractor agrees that those issues
    that are in conflict will be a subject of negotiation at the next
    collective bargaining session.

    (End of clause)

    (FR Doc. 88-22335 Filed 9-27-88; 8:45 am)

    BILLING CODE 3810-01-M

    Last year also gave us Public Law 100-690, "Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
    1988".  It is 400 pages, so please forgive me for not reading it or
    typing all of it in.  It creates a new executive agency for dealing
    with drugs and gives directives to all sorts of existing agencies.
    Title V of Public Law 100-690 is User Accountability.  Subtitle D of
    Title V is the five-page "Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988".  The
    Drug-Free Workplace Act requires federal contractors and grantees to
    establish anti-drug programs.  However, this act seems weaker than the
    Defense clause in that it does not stipulate testing.  When you're done
    wondering what the other 395 pages of Public Law 100-690 say, start
    wondering about what the other 689 or more laws the bicentennial
    Congress passed say.  I have a copy of Subtitle D if anybody is
    interested. 
    
    Note the Defense clause does not apply to the extent it conflicts with
    state or local law.  For some areas, it may be relatively simple to
    have the town pass an ordinance saying "Don't do that.".  Favorable
    decisions in California and Massachusetts would take care of those
    states. 
    
    The testing method is not specified.  I submit the most effective and
    accurate way to test for drug abuse that impairs productivity is to
    measure productivity.  The most effective way to test for abuse that
    decreases reliability is to test reliability.  The most effective way
    to test for abuse that increases absenteeism is to count days absent.
    And so on, and so on.  Alternative tests might include interrogatives,
    such as "Do you use illegal drugs?".  Particularly appropriate to this
    matter might be the use of the immersion measurement:  The subject is
    bound to a see-saw and forced underwater.  If they live, they are using
    illegal drugs and are sentenced to a counseling program.
    
    If you wish further information, contact Gurden Drake at (202)
    697-6921.  If you wish to comment, send written comments to Charles
    Lloyd.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .164 (edp)
    
    Thanks for keeping us posted. The clause regarding "Who is an
    employee in a sensitive position" I find especially interesting:
    
    "An employee who has been granted access to classified information;
     or employees in other positions **the contractor determines**
     [emphasis mine] involve national security, health or safety."
    
    It would seem to me that barring those working directly on the
    contract, Digital has a lot of leeway in determining who else 
    is in a "sensitive position" and needs to be tested. Digital 
    could call the shots and say "VMS engineering isn't sensitive",
    for example.
    
      - Ganesh
    
    

Re: .165  edp

Based on this Federal Register entry, it seems to me that Digital has a
great deal of flexibility.

First, as stated in 223.7054, paragraph (b), the drug-free work force clause
does not apply to commercial or commercial-type products, which would exclude
VMS for example.  (Would it include VMS packaged as part of another contract,
though?)

Second, as stated in 252.223-7500, paragraph (b), the contractor (Digital) is
"encouraged to implement alternative approaches comparable to the criteria in
paragraph (c) below that are designed to achieve the objectives of this
clause."  In other words, a drug-free work force program that *Digital*
designs would meet the terms of the contract.  (It's not clear who would
decide whether this program was legimately designed to meet the objectives
of paragraph (c), though.)

Third, as stated in 252.223-7500, paragraph (c) (4) (i), it's the contractor,
not the DoD, who determines "the extent of and criteria for" testing of
employees in sensitive positions.  Digital could decide that only a few
people need to be tested, or it might even be able to decide that nobody needs
to be tested except when there is probable cause that the employees have
been using drugs.

Fourth, in the remaining parts of 252.223-7500 (c), it says the contractor
"may", not "shall", test employees who aren't in sensitive positions.

Fifth, although 252.223-7500 (d) says that an employee found to be using
drugs illegally (which could mean employees who tested positive and weren't
using any of the legal substances which produce false positives) are not
allowed to remain on duty or perform in a sensitive position, it also says
that it's up to the contractor (i.e. Digital) to decide when such employees
can return to work.

Sixth, nowhere in the document does it say what will happen to employees who
refuse to take a drug test, so by default this is also Digital's decision.

If this is the language used in DEC's government contracts, and we can get a
friendly judge in case there's a dispute about whether DEC carried out the
terms of the contract, it seems to me that *nobody* at DEC should have to
take a drug test unless they want to!

If Digital really has this kind of flexibility, then it's doubly important for
us to tell management what kind of policy we'd like to have.  Assuming that
there has to be testing at all, here are what I think the key points of the
drug testing program should be:

	1. No employee will be tested without probable cause that they have
	   been using drugs on the job.

	2. No employee will be fired for declining to take a drug test.  (An
	   employee may be subject to normal disciplinary action for poor
	   performamce caused by drug use, though.)

	3. If Digital is forced to test employees working on classified
	   projects, an employee who declines to take a test will be given
	   the option of being reassigned to a project where drug testing is
	   not a requirement, without prejudice to the employee's future
	   prospects within the company.

				-- Bob

        Bob, that certainly sounds reasonable.  Are you going to send a
        copy of your note to the relevant people in Corporate Personnel
        (already identified in an earlier note)? 
        
        I trust that no one is disagreeing with the proposition (in the
        portion of the DFAR that edp helpfully provided) that a drug-free
        workforce is desirable in and of itself.
        
        I agree completely with the idea that the principle measures used
        should be measures of performance, absenteeism, reliability, and
        other things that relate directly to doing our jobs. 
        
        There are "legal" drugs (most notably alcohol, but also tobacco)
        that can have undesirable effects on performance, reliability, or
        absenteeism, and they are unlikely to be addressed by a testing
        program that focuses only on "illegal" drugs. 
        
        Tom

Re: .169  Tom

>        Bob, that certainly sounds reasonable.  Are you going to send a
>        copy of your note to the relevant people in Corporate Personnel
>        (already identified in an earlier note)? 
        
That's probably a good idea, but what I had in mind was that a group of
employees should come up a coherent message to management, along the lines of
what edp is doing.  (No, Al K., that doesn't mean that I want to start a
union!)  I think we should not only say what we don't want but also offer a
positive proposal of what drug-free workplace program we do want (given that
there has to be one at all).  I'm not sure how effective it would be for
each employee to fire off their own proposal to Personnel (I might do it,
though, if no one points out any serious flaws in what I said in .168).

>        I trust that no one is disagreeing with the proposition (in the
>        portion of the DFAR that edp helpfully provided) that a drug-free
>        workforce is desirable in and of itself.
        
I agree that no one should be using illegal drugs or coming to work stoned or
drunk.  (I have reservations about whether marijuana is more dangerous than
alcohol, though.)  I think the E.A.P. we have now should be adequate as long
as both management and employees help make it work.

				-- Bob

    Re .169:
    
    > I trust that no one is disagreeing with the proposition (in the
    > portion of the DFAR that edp helpfully provided) that a drug-free
    > workforce is desirable in and of itself.
    
    I disagree.  No scientific material has been presented to me to show
    that all illegal drugs are detrimental to parties other than the user,
    including me or an employer.  For that matter, it is not even clear
    that all illegal drugs are detrimental to the user.
    
    I feel that measures of skill and performance are entirely sufficient,
    because they are objective and achieve the necessary goals -- If drugs
    DO affect parties other than the user, measuring skill and performance
    will prevent damage.  If drugs DO NOT affect parties other than the
    user, measuring skill and performance will save the user from false
    accusations.
    
    No person should make these decisions, since they are political,
    emotional, and subject to media hype.  Let the facts speak for
    themselves.
    
    When I weigh the problems of importance to me, I feel more intrusion on
    my life from attacks on my freedom and privacy by employers,
    government, information dealers, and others than I do from alleged drug
    users or abusers.
    
    I'd rather have my privacy and freedom instead of restricting other
    people's right to make choices about their own bodies. 
    
    
    				-- edp 

    Re .158:
    
    > Unless it's your job to represent Digital to the government, you
    > might be wise to avoid mentioning Digital in your letter.
    
    I think it is unwise to suggest any sort of censorship.  Employment
    with Digital is not secret; people who are employed by Digital are free
    to tell anybody they like.
    
    A more specific caution might be appropriate:  Do not present an
    appearance of representing Digital if you do not.  For example, do not
    use Digital stationary and do not mention Digital in the signature
    clause -- you are not writing in your capacity as an employee.
    
    On the other hand, I feel free to state in the letter that I am
    employed by Digital.  Additionally, I have skills and knowledge that I
    may use outside of my employment with Digital, so I can also sign my
    letter "Eric Postpischil, Software Engineer", since I am a software
    engineer by virtue of completing a program of study and not by grant
    from Digital. 
    
    
    				-- edp 

        RE: .172 -- You said that better than I did, and captured my
        intent exactly.  Thanks.
        
        Tom

re .159


>    	(4)  Provision for identifying illegal drug users, including
>    testing on a controlled and carefully monitored basis.  

	OK, we have to make provision for testing. But making 
	provision for drug testing doesn't mean we have to do any.
	Look at all those nuclear plants that have to make provision
	for evacuating the population of nearby towns. How many
	have actually done an evacuation?

	Could we all piss into containers marked only by, say, cost center?
	If they all show clean, everyone is happy. If they don't, identification
	would proceed using a performance based process. That way no 
	ones test is tied directly to them, but a provision has been made
	for identifying them, in compliance with the contract. I admit that
	I wouldn't want to admit to having a chronic headache problem in a 
	group that had been identified as having samples which failed.


						Tom_K

re : 174

>>    	(4)  Provision for identifying illegal drug users, including
>>    testing on a controlled and carefully monitored basis.  

>	OK, we have to make provision for testing. 

Tom,

The way I read this is we have to make provision for identifying illegal
drug users INCLUDING testing... not just a provision for testing.

Bob

re: .168:

>	1. No employee will be tested without probable cause that they have
>	   been using drugs on the job.

"Probable cause" is a legal term and, I believe, the deciding factor in
a grand jury's return of an indictment.  If there is probable cause that
I am using illegal drugs (on or off the job), this should be reported to
the police: not to do so may in itself be illegal ("misprison of a felony").

I suspect that we would be within the requirements of the contract if we

-- did not allow employees convicted of possession or sale of illegal
   drugs to work on contracts with this clause.

-- ask employees working on such contracts to sign a statement that they
   are not using illegal drugs.

Martin.

I just finished plowing through all 176 notes..... whew.
    
    Q #1:   what amount of time would be lost due to testing
    versus time lost to drug effects now -- and directly related to
    this: what costs??
    
    Q #2: just exactly what are the tests that everyone is talking about??
    
    Q #3: If i'm to be tested, then I would like to see the
    customer/Digital pay for 3 simultaneous tests: One by the
    company/customer specified test facility, another by my own choice
    of test facility, and thirdly a government specified test facility.
    One sample split 3 ways, sealed on-site by myself, and delivered
    to the appropriate parties.
    
    Observation: Digital has started doing Cost+ contracts: SMARTS, 
    Boeing Sheet Metal.
    
    Bruce Evans, Santa Clara

    re .177:
    
    So far, I have seen no estimated figures over the time or money lost
    to the effects of illegal drugs in the workplace.  Certainly there is some
    loss, but I suspect that if it were actually collected, the whole
    hysteria over drug testing would be laughed out the door, because
    it would wind up being a small fraction of the loss caused by legal
    drugs (alcohol and tobacco).
    
    There are actually two tiers of testing in most reputable programs.
    The first level involves a relatively inexpensive and not particularly
    urine accurate test, such as EMIT.  There is some dispute about the accuracy
    of this test, but some of the figures I've seen indicate that the
    false positive rate is as high as 10% and the false negative as
    high as 20%.  It is unclear whether this takes into account only
    the test, or also covers errors in procedure.  Normally, if you
    test positive in the first test, another urine sample is taken and submitted
    to a battery of (supposedly) considerably more accurate (and expensive)
    tests.  The degree of accuracy possible in the entire procedure
    is one subject of fierce debate.  At least one study cited by the
    ACLU (I can dig out the name of the organization who did it if you
    want) found that a sample of test labs reported 40% false positive
    when supplied with drug-free urine samples.
    
    Since the second level of tests is considerably more expensive than
    the first, one area of general concern is that a lot of companies
    may use the first, rather inaccurate tests without going to the
    second level, particularly for new hires and low level positions.
    After all, how many thousands of dollars would you expect an employer
    to spend on a hiring candidate or a janitor?
    
    Another area of concern about the testing is that a great deal more
    can be learned from a urine sample than just whether the metabolitic
    byproducts of (possible) drug use are present.  A good deal about
    your general state of health, susceptability to a number of diseases,
    pregnancy, etc. can be determined.  Given the current drive to rein
    in health costs, that almost automatically puts an employer in a
    position of temptation, if not outright conflict of interest.

    /Dave

    re .177, .178
    
    If anyone cares about the technology...
    
    The drug screening commonly used is based upon radio-immunoassay. A
    molecule is engineered that will attach itself to the compound(s) of
    interest and tagged with some radio-isotope. A known amount of this
    molecule is allowed to mix with the sample under test for a specified
    time. It is then flushed from the sample and a reading taken of
    residual radiation from the sample. In the case of drug testing, the
    tagged molecule looks for metabolites, the molecule(s) that result when
    the liver deactivates the drug molecule. Compounds that have
    similar molecular structures tend to break down to the same
    metabolite(s) which is why many over the counter drugs will show false
    positives on these tests.
    
    RIA is conceptually very simple and very sensitive, but for this to be
    at all accurate, temperature and pH, along with other test condition,
    have to be carefully controlled. In a previous job, I operated an
    automated RIA machine in a large hopsital lab where it was used to
    monitor small changes in specific enzymes that would in turn indicate
    how the healing process was proceeding. It was a very expensive process
    as we would have to recalibrate before each run and include known test
    samples for every 5-10 real samples. And we were aiming for
    repeatability, not absolute accuracy as the useful information was not
    the absolute concentration of the enzyme, but how much it had changed
    in 24 hours.
    
    I have a hard time beleiving that these problems have been overcome for
    use in mass produced test kits, such as EMIT. There is another,
    competing brand of test, using the same technology whose name I forget.
    Both of course claim to have solved the problems with false reading etc
    that they both denied existed, excecpt in the other company's kits. I
    recall reading that one of Reagan's drug advisors holds some patents in
    this area...
    
    Backup tests supposedly use gas chromatography and mass spectometry.
    Both require a significant amount of trained manual intervention and
    are very expensive.
    
    And there are cases of employers running other tests without the
    employee's knowledge, in particular pregnancy tests.
    
    This idiocy is spreading. In the process of applying for life insurance
    recently, I was asked to sign forms consenting to the taking of blood
    and urine samples and to allow them to perform any test their
    bureaucratic hearts desired (including but not limited to drug testing
    and HIV antibody testing) and to approve the release of such results to
    some giant national insurance medical database without my ever seeing
    the results. Needless to say, I didn't.
    
    gary

re Note 716.179 by STAR::HUGHES:

>     This idiocy is spreading. In the process of applying for life insurance
>     recently, I was asked to sign forms consenting to the taking of blood
>     and urine samples and to allow them to perform any test their
>     bureaucratic hearts desired (including but not limited to drug testing
>     and HIV antibody testing) and to approve the release of such results to
>     some giant national insurance medical database without my ever seeing
>     the results. Needless to say, I didn't.
  
        I've had a similar experience.  I belong to the IEEE and have
        been buying the IEEE members group life insurance for about
        10 years.  Periodically they have a drive to get people to
        sign up for increased coverage.  I've almost always taken
        advantage of this, since it was easy (just sign a form and
        send in a few more dollars) and it tracked my family's
        increasing needs fairly well.

        The last time I did this (signed the form and sent in extra
        money), a package of needles and vials and stuff arrived in
        the mail about a month later.  The only paperwork was a form
        with about 20 items on it with one checked off.  The rather
        terse English next to the box was an "order" to take this to
        a doctor to get the blood drawn and mailed to a particular
        address.  That was all it said.

        Needless to say, I didn't.  My extra money was returned.  I
        wonder if I'm marked in some great insurance database as
        "uninsurable" or "refused"?

        Bob

    re: 180 "...they sent a package of needles...."
    
    Good Grief!!! They shipped needles to you!! I know diabetics can
    purchase injection equipment, but I thought that was somewhat
    controlled (i.e., the pharmacy had to see the doctors statement,
    etc).
    
    
    re: last few - drug test descriptions
    
    Thanks... I graduated BS in Chemistry and appreciate what you are
    saying. I agree, especially with the relative accuracy required
    by the various instrumentation -- I'm suspicious we are letting
    ourselves (as a society) get the attitude this drug testing stuff
    is like the corner drugstore pregnancy kit - cheap, relatively
    accurate, and foolproof [pretty much all false]
                                         
    Sigh. Hopefully this will be a relatively quick fad...... but I
    don't think so.
    
    Bruce Evans                          

    
    	   A quick perusal of the "Review and Evaluation of Smoking
    	Cessation Methids: The United States and Canada, 1978-1985"
    	has revealed that there are now available tests which can
    	detect the use of tobacco.  It further suggests that these
    	tests will become an integral part of the campaign against
    	smoking.  In light of the controversy of late over drug
    	testing, this seems like just another expression of the same
    	attitude of oppression that is becoming so popular.  How
    	long before government contracts insist on a "smoke-free
    	workplace"?  Probably not as long as you might think.
    
    	   The tests are being perfected today such that they
    	are "easier to administer, more accurace, and more sensitive."
    	The insurance companies will be the first to pick them up,
    	I'm sure... but big business won't be far behind.
    
    	- Greg

    Re .181:
    
>   Good Grief!!! They shipped needles to you!! 
    
    Laws on dispensing of hypodermic needles varies from state to state.
    Here in AZ, a prescription is not necessary to obtain syringes.
    
    I have friend who does medical intake for drug and alcohol patients
    here and is glad the law is as it is. Junkies are going to be junkies.
    You don't just say "Stop that!" and they stop. It's better if they
    can get their own needles easily and not share them to reduce the
    spread of AIDS, hepatitis, etc.
    
    Jim
    

    re .182
    
    Insurance Co's routinely test for nicotine metabolites in their urine
    testing.
    
    gary

re Note 716.181 by BENTLY::EVANS:

>     re: 180 "...they sent a package of needles...."
>     
>     Good Grief!!! They shipped needles to you!! I know diabetics can
>     purchase injection equipment, but I thought that was somewhat
>     controlled (i.e., the pharmacy had to see the doctors statement,
>     etc).
  
        This was blood-drawing equipment;  perhaps these needles
        differ from the kind used to inject substances.  (They get
        used with the "vacuum filled" vials.)

        Bob

    What right does a BIG company have in prying into their employees
    private lives?  I am total against the drug testing.  All I can
    say is that when they do start testing for this that I'm sure they
    will be amazed as to who uses drugs and who doesn't.  I bet some
    of the management all the way down the line, uses some sort of drug,
    whether it be alcohol to cocaine.  And I'm wondering how a manager
    would feel knowing that his best person the one who he'd hope would
    never leave his group just tested positive.

re: < Note 716.186 by FTMUDG::GRANDE >

>    What right does a BIG company have in prying into their employees
>    private lives?  

	Don't blame DEC; this is being imposed by Uncle Same, isn't it?

	And I don't blame the government, either. Drug users are potential
	security and QA risks. On a sensitive project, it is not unreasonable
	(IMHO) to eliminate those risks before they become actual problems.

>    All I can say is that when they do start testing for this that I'm sure 
>    they will be amazed as to who uses drugs and who doesn't.  I bet some
>    of the management all the way down the line, uses some sort of drug,
>    whether it be alcohol to cocaine.  

	I agree. Maybe when people start getting laid off or reassigned
	they'll get the message that taking drugs is stupid, bad for your
	health, and illegal. I have little sympathy for those who get
	caught by this.

>    And I'm wondering how a manager would feel knowing that his best person 
>    the one who he'd hope would never leave his group just tested positive.

	Yeah, too bad - but you pays your money, you takes your chances.

	Hey, maybe they'll let the guys who get caught go through rehab as an
	option.

eric

    Re .187:
    
    > Don't blame DEC; this is being imposed by Uncle Same, isn't it?
    
    No, it is not.  Digital was under no obligation to sign the clause.
    
    > And I don't blame the government, either.
    
    What, shall we just give up representative government?
    
    > Drug users are potential security and QA risks.
    
    On the contrary, there would be no security risk if people weren't
    threatened with loss of their jobs if a blackmailer revealed their use
    or abuse.  And quality assurance is effected by CHECKING QUALITY, not
    by checking people for things unrelated to quality.  This current
    government action is a result of politics and emotions, NOT SCIENCE.
    
    > Maybe when people start getting laid off or reassigned they'll get
    > the message that taking drugs is stupid, bad for your health, and
    > illegal.
    
    When people start getting laid off or reassigned, people will get the
    message that they live under an oppressive and intrusive government
    which acts unfairly, unscientifically, and with little regard for the
    rights and privacy of its citizens.  NOT ALL DRUG USE IS STUPID.  Drugs
    are outlawed for POLITICAL reasons, not scientific.  And even if drug
    use is stupid, people have a RIGHT to PRIVACY.  Just as long as it does
    not affect their jobs, which you can check on by CHECKING THEIR JOBS,
    NOT THEIR URINE.  If you want to know if a computer is working, you run
    diagnostics on the computer.  You don't check urine to make sure the
    computer is working.  And just because something is illegal does not
    mean it is unethical.  The government does NOT have a right to make any
    law it pleases, and it's more than past time for people to recognize
    they should respect other people's freedom. 
    
    
    				-- edp 

    RE .188:
    I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU!!!!

    RE .187
    The people that do these drugs and are very good wokers;one's whom
    nobody ever would suspect, probably DO NOT believe that the drugs
    they do are STUPID. So what if YOU  think they're stupid people
    for doing drugs, do they tell you that you are stupid for not doing
    drugs?  These people would probably not take the option of going
    to rehab. for the reason that they do not believe that as long as
    they aren't hurting anybody but themselves(I'll agree that they
    are hurting themselves in the long run)why should the company they
    work for demand that they go to rehab. or get fired.  The people
    that they may offer this 'option' to could very well be a good friend
    of yours whom you had no idea that they used drugs(alcohol is a
    DRUG).  Wouldn't it be sad to see someone you trusted and liked
    very much get reassigned or laid off just because they did drugs
    ON THEIR OWN TIME!!!!!!? All people aren't junkies just because
    they do DRUGS.  What's it to anybody what other people do with their
    time whether it be legal or illegal as long as their work isn't
    affected by it.  I know some people who work (not here) better and
    are smarter (they think more realalistic and logically) when they're
    "stoned" than some of the upper management and engineers do that
    have big degrees and don't do any ILLEGAL drugs, but they may have
    gone out the night before and got so "wasted" from helping their
    friends finish a keg of beer that they had to call in sick or come
    in late because of a hang over.  In my opinion, alcohol does more
    damage to the one who drinks it and innocent people than does smoking
    pot.  How many stories have you read that say that this person killed
    a family when he/she hit another car head on because he/she smoked
    a joint a half hour ago? Probably not nearly anything compared to
    pictures and stories you have seen about someone killing a family
    due to high blood alcohol content.

    re:187
    I just hope neither you or I get laidoff or assigned to a rehab
    program because of an error in testing.
    
    I don't take drugs now, never have, and don't expect to take then
    in the future. I also don't trust the testing!
    

re: < Note 716.191 by FYRCAT::HOGLUND >

>    I just hope neither you or I get laidoff or assigned to a rehab
>    program because of an error in testing.

	Agreed.
    
>    I don't take drugs now, never have, and don't expect to take then
>    in the future. 

	2 out of 3 aint bad (statute of limitations is over, I think)

>    I also don't trust the testing!

	If I knew enough about the procedure, I could make a judgement
	about this. My guess (yes, only a guess) that the testing will
	consist of multiple tests on multiple samples, in order to minimize
	the chances of false positives and negatives.

re: .188, .189, .190

	Well, we disagree. I used to feel like you do, too - maybe age has
	made me a bit crusty.

	However, we should not continue this branch of the discussion - at
	least not here. If there is/was a Soapbox, that is where this dis-
	cussion belongs.

re: .188

	Yes, Digital did not have to agree to the drug-testing clause. What
	if they hadn't? How many contracts would they have to no-bid on?

	If they *really* wouldn't have been punished for not agreeing to the
	clause, I agree with you - they shouldn't have. On the other hand,
	remember how they puclicly lynched Julian Bond, for refusing to take
	a urine test.
    
eric

    I also very strongly agree with .188!!!!!

re: < Note 716.194 by REGENT::LEVINE >

1)	No rights are absolute (e.g. yelling "fire" in a movie theatre).

2)	The courts do have the right to determine/interpret just what our
	rights are. They could, for example, determine that the Second
	Amendment does not give the average citizen the right to bear arms
	(please avoid this rathole).

3)	Yes, I could see this ending up in court.

4)	Personally, as I think I stated .187, I believe that we will see our
	rights redefined to a certain extent as subordinate to those of society-
	that society has a right to take steps to defend itself. For example,
	the right to safe streets may be ruled to be more important than that
	of the Second Amendment (in order to ban AK47s from sale or ownership)
	or that the right of women not to be degraded is more important than
	the First Amendment. It's my personal belief that this will be a
	trend in the judiciary in the future.

eric

    re .195
    
    That's all well and good, but Digital Equipment Corp is a computer
    manufacturer, it's not the government and it isn't a police force.
    Ergo, law enforecment is not DEC's business, unless DEC has
    definite reason to believe that laws are being broken on its
    premises.
    
    

    Re .195:
    
    > The courts do have the right to determine/interpret just what our
    > rights are.
    
    No, they do not.  The courts have some authorization from us, the
    people, to determine exactly what is meant by our laws.  If the courts
    overstep that authorization, the people will exercise their rights
    through civil unrest.
    
    Government has DUTIES.  People have RIGHTS. 
    
    
    				-- edp

> < Note 716.195 by BOSTON::SOHN "just shy of thirtysomething B`(" >

> 4)	Personally, as I think I stated .187, I believe that we will see our
>	rights redefined to a certain extent as subordinate to those of society-
>	that society has a right to take steps to defend itself. ...
>	.... It's my personal belief that this will be a
>	trend in the judiciary in the future.

Exactly the point!  And that's the argument that many in this topic and 
elsewhere are arguing for.  STOP THIS EROSION of personal liberty
by pushing back against those who would make the decisions you describe
for us.  Hard as it may be to stop them from taking rights away,
it will be far harder to get those rights back should we lose them.

- tom]

>                       What is wrong with this picture?
...
>    There's a rumor going around in my building/group.  It states
>    that field service people with company cars will now be tested
>    for drugs.  Does anybody know if there's any truth in this?
...
    
...    
>    So...  What I'm hearing then is that the privacy and confidentiality
>    of our books is more important than the privacy and confidentiality
>    of our people.  The dollars outweigh the importance of the employees
>    (often touted by management as "our most valuable resource").
...    
    
    Am I the only one who noticed that there was lot more uproar over the
    demise of the car plan than over the drug testing at Digital?  If WE,
    as employees of this coroporation, guard our pocketbooks more
    vehemently than our privacy, how can we expect our employer NOT to
    outweigh the dollars over employees?
    
    - Vikas

    P.S. Personally, I am amused by the number of responses generated over
    a suggestion of dress code, even though all of us knew that the person
    making the suggestion had zero authority to really bring about any
    change in the way we dress. 

I had the opportunity to sit in at a meeting yesterday where the manager of
Corporate Employee Relations was the "guest speaker" (actually, it was sort
of a small group discussion).  Naturally, she outlined her responsibilities
for us.  One of them was "solving the drug testing dilemma" (my quote, not
hers). The meeting had nothing at all to do with drug testing, but she did
say a couple of statements to that subject.  I won't even try to quote her,
but I got the very strong feeling that she is against mandatory drug testing
for DEC employees.  More importantly, this individual came across as a truly
dynamic, caring, concerned manager who wants to "do the right thing."  It was
a tremendous pleasure for me to sit in and her her thoughts on the topics at
hand.  I am totally against drug testing.  All I can say is that I feel a 
great relief knowing that this manager is in charge of resolving this issue
for the corporation.

Phil

    Re .197:
    
    >> The courts have some authorization from us, the
    >> people, to determine exactly what is meant by our laws.  If the courts
    >> overstep that authorization, the people will exercise their rights
    >> through civil unrest.

	A fine example of this in my case is my objection to an enforced
	"speed limit" for automobiles on major highways. My response is 
	civil unrest: I buy a radar detector and take my chances. I am
	still a "law-abiding" citizen when the laws make intellectual
	sense, but this one "law" I strongly disagree with.

	[Belief/disbelief in the "speed limit" usually results in *HOT* 
	 debates. My intent is not to start such a one here, merely to 
	 point out there are other ways to pursue civil unrest than the 
	 usual "sit-ins", etc.] 

							Warren

    Re: .200 (Corporate Employee Relations manager)
    
    What's her name?  Perhaps she'd like some opinions on the subject.
    
    tim
    

        Re: .199
        
>    Am I the only one who noticed that there was lot more uproar over the
>    demise of the car plan than over the drug testing at Digital?
        
        I've noticed the difference, but I'm not sure that the visible
        uproar can be used as an indication of the priorities of Digital
        employees. 
        
        The car plan change was a change in Digital policy that affected
        large number of Digital employees directly.  The drug testing
        plan currently only affects a very small number of employees.
        If Digital had announced a drug testing program that affected as
        many employees as the car plan change (or even if Digital said
        they were considering such a plan), then the uproar would have
        been much louder. 
        
        The participants in the uproar over the car plan were, by and
        large, the employees affected by the policy change.  On the
        other hand, the participants in the uproar over drug testing
        have mostly been those that object to the idea of drug testing
        but not currently affected.
        
        Also, Digital changed its position on the car plan several
        times, and each of these changes were discussed in detail.  This
        caused hundreds of notes to be written.  There hasn't been this
        fluctuation in the corporate position on drug testing. 
        
        					B.J.

        RE: .203 -- The Corporate Employee Relations Manager is Laurie
        Margolies, DTN 251-1370, CFO2-3/C19.  If you're planning to
        contact her, I'd recommend you use MTS addressing so that it
        will get delivered to her ALL-IN-1 account, although ELF lists
        her VAXmail address as BARTLE::MARGOLIES.  You could, of course,
        try calling her on the telephone, I suppose, but you're not
        very likely to get through.
        
        RE: This topic -- Please try to focus on issues around drug
        testing at Digital.  At least some of the recent replies have been
        rather immoderate, and have little or nothing to do with working
        at Digital.  In my opinion, they belong in PEAR::SOAPBOX, not
        here. 
        
        Tom
        
        
        
        

    I'm working on the letter to Digital.  It's going to take me a few more
    days -- there's a lot to cover; it's up to 300 lines now.  I'll post a
    draft here as soon as possible.
    
    
    				-- edp

Re: .205

>        RE: .203 -- The Corporate Employee Relations Manager is Laurie
>        Margolies, DTN 251-1370, CFO2-3/C19.  If you're planning to

Laurie is *not* the Corporate Employee Relations Manager.  She does, however,
work in the Corporate Employee Relations Department.  This was verified with
a phone call a few minutes ago.

Phil

    I believe the lady who was quoted as being the DRI for resolving the
    drug testing dilemma is Erline Belton.  (sp?)
    
    Marge

        Erline is the manager responsible for the drug testing program,
        and is working with a team of several other senior people.
        
        If Laurie is not the manager, then I was lied to when I called
        the number listed in the Digital Telephone Directory and asked
        for the name of the manager.  It's an unfortunate fact of life
        that the Digital Telephone Directory leaves something to be
        desired in this regard, since it lists a phone number for the
        function without giving a name.  However, the "personal" listing
        for Laurie Margolies matches, in both DTN and mailstop, the
        one for the "Corporate Employee Relations Manager", as well
        as for the "Employee Relations Program Manager", in the
        Departmental Listing section of the Digital Telephone Directory.
        So you can imagine why I trusted what I was told.
        
        Tom

    This might interest some of you:
    
    [reprinted without permission from _Industry_Week_, February 20,
    1989,  p.11]
    
    	Need help on an antidrug program?
    
    	If you've decided to launch a drug-abuse program in your company
    	-- or you want to evaluate a program that's already in place
    	-- help is just a phone call away.  The "Drug-Free Workplace
    	Helpline," operated by the National Institute on Drug Abuse,
    	is staffed from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. (Eastern time) Monday through
    	Friday.  Staffers can provide information on:  Assessing drug
    	abuse in an organization, implementing a drug-abuse policy,
    	choosing an employee-assistance program, evaluating the 
    	effectiveness of a drug-abuse program, TECHNICAL AND LEGAL 
    	ASPECTS OF DRUG TESTING [emphasis mine], and other subjects.
    	The number to call is:  800-843-4971

    rep ;210
    	That makes sense, a hotline!  Well on the news last eve,
    I saw a company which sells a service of infiltrating companys employee
    ranks to spy on them (narcs we used to call them in school??) So
    watch out for those new hires!
    
    -d-

    The following is a VERY rough draft of a letter to Digital.  I have not
    proofread it at all, just typed it in as I went through the outline I
    had.  At this point, it is a series of explanatory statements about
    each of the issues I am aware of.  It does not yet represent my views,
    let alone those of anybody else. 
    
    I am entering this only because time is of the essence; Digital is
    making plans NOW.  I think it is urgent that employees have some
    input into these plans, and perhaps some participation.  Because
    of the timing, I am considering sending this to the previously
    identified personnel person tomorrow (Thursday), unless there are
    objections.
    
    I will include a strong statement that this is not a representation of
    anybody's views; the paper-in-progress is only being revealed because
    of the need to make Digital aware that there are serious employee
    concerns which need to be addressed before plans are made.  I am also
    going to ask that it not yet be circulated except to those who need to
    know that the final paper is on its way.
    
    If you have comments, please make them as soon as possible.  I'll be
    checking spelling, formatting, and doing some rewriting and maybe a
    little re-organizing.  If you have suggestions for making things
    clearer, presenting them in a more logical order, or additional points,
    please let me know.
    
    
    				-- edp 

PROCEDURE

Suddenness

The immediate reaction to news that there will be a drug-testing
program is "What's going on here?".  Not only were employees not
notified prior to entering into a contract that affects them, but
information presented through internal memo or Digital Video Network
is that Digital is now determining what is necessary to comply with
DFARS Subpart 223.75.  This is confusing, because it would seem proper to
determine the implications of a contract before signing it.

Employee Impact

The lack of employee involvement in the decision is disturbing.  Digital
is attempting to add to the requirements of the jobs of some
employees.  Surely employment involves two parties, and both parties
should consent to a change in the relationship.  Matters of privacy
and dignity are among the many discussed below; drug testing is a
serious matter.  On a matter of such importance, it is discourteous
not to ask "Would you mind?" or even solicit opinions.  Instead, we are
concerned that Digital is making decisions about its employees without giving
those employees the consideration that they deserve as human beings and as
parties to the employment relationship.

Information

Announcement of Digital's agreement to a drug-testing requirement came
as a surprise, and it came after the fact.  Even since that announcement,
there has been little news.  We have been told that Digital is making
decisions about the implications of the DFARS requirement, but we do not
know what employee involvement or consideration there is in this
process.  We would like to know what is happening.  We believe that
employees have a role here, and that they should take part in deciding
what will happen to themselves.

Corporate Impact

The DFARS drug-testing requirement places obligations upon Digital, and,
like all things in this world, these obligations will have a cost.  In
addition, agreeing to drug-testing has implications about the character
of the corporation.  The agreement is not only a change in Digital's
personnel relations; it has implications about retaining control in the
face of pressures from external parties.  These are discussed in detail
below, but the magnitude of this change raises questions about the way
in which it was made.  To what extent does agreement to the DFARS
requirement represent corporate policy?  The precedent that has been set
here is suitable matter for the highest levels of the corporation.  Has
policy been set on that level?

Current Action

Decisions about Digital's drug-testing program are being made now.  There
are factors that need to be considered in these decisions.  The actual
meaning of the DFARS clause needs to be resolved.  For example, it states
that "commercial or commercial-type" products are excluded.  To what
extent does this apply to Digital products?  Will Digital consider
appropriate alternatives as permitted by the clause?

Digital has in the past rejected doing business where the customer
required as a condition contractual clauses which were repugnant to the
dignity of the employee as a person.  The decision to accept the DFARS
clause is a change in previous policy.  What made the Defense clause
different?  We seek to understand the motivations that have changed
our employer.

Digital is a very special place to work, and the principal
reason for this is a corporate philosophy of respecting the integrity and
dignity of its engineers.  Our concern is that these corporate values
should be consistently championed from the highest levels of Digital.

SUGGESTIONS

In general, we seek Digital's help in dealing with this intrusion on
our persons.  We can express our opposition to our representatives in
Congress, but we have no representatives in the Department of Defense.  This
change in our lives comes no through the normal political process of
law-making, but through a separate agency which seeks to act through our
employer.  We realize this places Digital in an undeserved position, but
if Digital yields the circumvention of the normal process will have
succeeded.  Thus, we request Digital oppose intrusion on the privacy and
dignity of its employees.

Rejection

We naturally would prefer that Digital not sign contracts containing
repugnant clauses, and we suggest that this be done when it is possible
to negotiate a contract without such a clause or when it is possible to
make the hard decision to reject the business.  For reasons given
throughout this document, that decision can be the proper one because
of the benefits it provides.  Digital could also seek to repeal or modify the
Defense Department rule requiring the offending clause.  Certainly Digital
is not the only company affected by this rule.  Perhaps other companies
with shared interests could jointly express the concerns of this matter to
the government.  This is a desirable course of action in any event, because
this clause places obligations on Digital which will exact a cost, and the
government should not be permitted to believe that it may take action
freely.  All members of this society, persons and corporations, need to
seek to regulate their government.  It is necessary that neither Digital
nor its employees remain silent.

It is also important to recognize the possibility that acceptance of the
DFARS clause will lend support to others seeking to request similar
conditions of Digital.  Such a trend should be controlled before it can
start.  We suggest that strict policy on this matter be set as soon as possible.

Nullification Through Local Law

When Digital does make the unfortunate choice to accept undesirable
clauses, we suggest that the clause be mitigated to whatever degree
possible.  For example, DFARS Subpart 223.75 is nullified when inconsistent
with state or local law.  Employees would be grateful to Digital for
showing support for legislation protecting the privacy and dignity of human
beings.

Mitigation

In those places where local law does not protect the employee, Digital can
seek to make a drug-testing program as respectful as possible.  To the
extent possible, testing should be voluntary and non-intrusive.  Possibly
a signed agreement by the employee not to use drugs will satisfy the
DFARS clause.

The DFARS clause encourages the implementation of alternative approaches.  The
stated objectives include the control of costs, delay, and risks of lessened
productivity and reliability and greater absenteeism.  We submit that an
effective way to meet these objectives is to directly measure or observe
productivity, reliability, and absenteeism.  When these are detected, they
should be corrected, even if drug abuse is not the cause, so this approach
is beneficial without being objectionable to many people.  When there is a
problem, Digital should focus on the performance issue.

Employee Autonomy

It is desirable that a person retain control of their own body.  For this
purpose, it is desirable that assignment to a job affected by drug-testing
requirements be voluntary, and that non-prejudicial reassignment to another
position be available when requested.  Employees should be given information
about a drug-testing program so that they may make their own choices.  A person
should be permitted to refuse to submit to actions they find offensive, and
such refusal should be possible without fear of undue repercussions.

HUMAN DIGNITY

Privacy

Privacy is an important aspect of human rights.  Some amount of privacy is
even a psychological need.  There is controversy about what substances
should and should not be illegal and to what extent use is abuse.  But these
are not issues to be decided within Digital and certainly not by the Department
of Defense.  While the DFARS clause overtly expresses opinions about drug
use, it is also a matter of privacy.  The DFARS clause assaults the privacy
of all employees, whether or not they are using drugs.

It is obvious that drug tests strip away the privacy of those who test
positive because the person has taken an illegal substance.  But
drug tests reveal more than use of illegal substances, so information about
the private lives of law-abiding citizens is threatened.  Even if tests only
revealed use of illegal substances, the forceful examination of a even a
person who does not use illegal substances is still an intrusion into their
private life.  People simply do not want strangers interfering with
them.

Respect

The DFARS clause contains a contradiction.  One criterion for employees to
be tested is those in positions of trust and confidence.  Then DFARS clause
requires employees who are trusted to be tested for drugs.  This is a clear
lack of trust and confidence.  Requiring a person to submit to a drug test
is a clear statement that they are not trusted.  It is an act of disrespect.

Repugnance

The DFARS clause does not describe the physical acts it may require.  What
is involved is at best an indignity and at worst humiliation.  Digital would
be asking employees to provide a sample of their normally taboo body fluids
to a faceless corporation for impersonal processing.  To keep control,
some drug-testing programs involve observation of the act.  This more than
exceeds the latitude that an employer should have in making requests of their
employees, let alone requiring.  And even supervision without observation is
repugnant.

Compensation

If a drug-testing program is implemented, this is a new addition to the
job requirements of some employees.  But nothing is heard about consideration
for the employees' reduction of freedom.  The drug-testing program represents
a hazard to future employment, including hazard to those who will refuse to
give up their privacy and to those who receive positive test results, whether
falsely or otherwise.  If the corporation does not recognize the human values
described above, at least recognize that additional job requirements and
hazards correspond to some economic value.  Just as Digital should not let the
government freely impose new contract clauses, employees should not let
Digital freely impose new conditions, both for the disdain and inconvenience
of the conditions and for the limitation of future conditions.

EMPLOYEE RIGHTS

All employees are human, and so those who accept a drug-testing program
should be accorded rights necessary to preserve justice.

Such rights include:

Any person subject to a drug test should be informed of the reasons for
the test.  Probable cause is the only normal grounds for such an
invasion of privacy, if indeed there are ever grounds.  In such a case,
the person should be informed of the evidence and testimony against them,
and the person should have the opportunity to explain the evidence, confront
the witnesses, and otherwise rebut the case.

Some employees may agree to scheduled or random testing.  The use of
schedules or random testing requires monitoring to prevent accidental
or deliberate abuse which might unfairly target some persons or invade
privacy.  The subjects of such tests should take part in such monitoring.

Testing on other grounds less than probable cause, such as mere suspicion
or a supervisor's discretion, is highly subject to abuse and should never
be condoned.

Whenever a sample of a person's body, wastes, or other personal material
is taken, including urine, blood, and hair, the person has a right to be
given portions to provide to testers of their own selection and to retain
for future resolution.  Provision should be made for sealing such samples
and transmitting them in the manner necessary to preserve their status as
legal evidence.  Proper regard shall be given to alternate test results when
made by respectable testers.

It should be recognized that errors can occur because of use of legal
substances, natural body variations, and other items that would cause even
different testers to falsely report a positive result.  Because of this,
a tested person has the right to explain test results, to take additional
tests, to have the tests made by the most accurate methods available, and to
contest results.

All test results should be kept in the strictest secrecy.  Test results should
not be available to any party other than those immediately involved, including
the subject's family, physician, or insurer; Personnel employees; and
supervisors or others in the management chain.  Digital should establish
controls for handling sensitive information and make those controls known and
verifiable to employees.

When test results are found to be in error or unrelated to Digital concerns,
they should be destroyed at the employee's request.  Employee's should be
informed of their right to have irrelevant, outdated, or erroneous
records destroyed.

These rights should extend to other personal information, such as reports
of suspected substance abuse, comments by supervisors, and adminstrative
actions.  Whatever information is collected about a person should be held
confidential, accessible only to those who absolutely needed.  For example,
a report of suspected abuse should be made available to no person other
than one charged with decided whether or not it is appropriate to administer
a test.  It is not necessary to make such a report available to the
employee's supervisor.  One consequence of failure to maintain such confidence
would be the prejudicing of a supervisor against an employee based on an
unsupported or malicious report.

If any action is taken against an employee, including suspension, transfer, or
denial of assignment, such penalty should be rescinded when results are
properly explained, when shown to be erroneous or unacceptable, or when the
problem indicated by the test results is corrected.

EMPLOYEE INFORMATION

About the Drug-Testing Program

Employees should be informed in advance that they are subject to a
drug-testing program.  This information is needed to make decisions about
whether or not to accept the intrusion into their privacy and possible
consequences.  Information should be included about who might be tested,
circumstances under which tests will be required or requested, who will
determine what employees will be tested, how that determination will
be made, and what choices the employee has before, during, and after
the testing.

Legal Rights

Persons who are subject to a drug-testing program, whether or not they
have yet been required or requested to submit to testing, should be
informed of their rights under applicable laws.  In some jurisdictions,
employees will have a right to refuse to take a test.  When that is the
case, the employee should be informed of that right -- no person should
be compelled to take a test with the mistaken belief that they are
required to submit.  All other rights should be made known to the employee,
such as rights to contest or explain results.

The Tests

Any person to be tested should be permitted to understand the nature of
the tests they are to undergo.  Each such person should therefore be
provided with a list of the tests to be made, including what method of
testing will be used, what the tests detect, how accurate the tests are,
what parties will be performing the tests or handling the samples, what
can cause inaccuracies in the test results, and what challenges to the
tests have been made in the past or exist now.  This information should
be complete to the extent that the person can locate confirming
material.  For example, in telling a person about the accuracy of a test,
the person should be given information sufficient for them to retrieve
copies of studies which established that accuracy.

In particular, each person who is asked to submit to a test should be
informed of what the tests can detect, even if the things that can be
detected are not the purpose of performing the test.  That is, the
subject should be made aware of everything that can be revealed by the
test, including use of legal substances, pregnancy, and illness.

Results and Administration

To maintain the integrity of a system of information, it is necessary that
people have access to information about themselves.  Any person who has
been tested should be informed in detail of the results.  For example, if
tests measure a concentration, that information should be reported in full
and not reduced to a positive or negative report.  Data necessary to
interpret such information should also be provided, such as typical
concentrations, normal variations thereof, and values that would be abnormal.

When any information is collected or created about a person, it should be
made known to that person so that it can be checked for accuracy and
relevance.  This should include reports of suspicion, decisions made about
an employee, or any adminstrative action.

POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONCERNS

External Influences on Digital

Turning down a contract containing an unacceptable clause is a loss of
revenue.  But it is also an investment, because it strengthens Digital's
negotiating stand, deters such clauses in the future, and protects Digital
from growing into a situation where it is overly dependent on a single
source of revenue.

The government has learned some new things.  The Department of Defense has
learned it can have its way with Digital.  The politicians have learned they
can implement a social agenda through means that sidestep the normal
Constitutional and other legal safeguards.  These will not be
forgotten.  Drugs are out of style, at least on the front pages of our
newspapers and the lead stories of our television news.  But drugs are by
no means the only social issue, of today or tomorrow.  Other people with goals
now have a new method to use to achieve their ends.

The Defense Department has opened the way for others.  Representatives will
find it convenient to add an amendment to a bill which will add a clause
to one contract or another.  Other government agencies will establish their
own rules.  And Digital has already received requests from private companies
to submit Digital employees to drug-testing.  There is a lot of potential
for pressure from many directions.  A strong and decisive policy is needed
to control that pressure.

Checks and Balances

Our government was designed with specific protections.  Different powers
of the government were given to different branches.  The rights of citizens
to due process, freedom from search and seizure,
and others were recognized by the Constitution to protect citizens from
all branches of government.  In other words, some powers were given to
the various branches of government but some powers were not given to the
government at all.

In the DFARS clause, the Department of Defense seeks to subject some
people to intrusive searches.  There is a significant danger here of
presuming people guilty unless they can prove their innocence.  Certainly
it can be argued (not necessarily correctly) that the Department of
Defense is acting within the law.  But due process and freedom from search
are more than a matter of law.  These rights were written into the law
because they are valuable.  These rights produce desirable results, and
so we should hold on to them for the benefit of those results, rather than
a legal basis.

There are several checks and balances we are losing here.  The Department
of Defense made this regulation.  But Congress is our legislative
body.  We need to oppose this transfer of power so that we can retain
control of our government.

Administering tests is a search of a very private kind.  Privacy is
valued for reasons given elsewhere, but privacy should also be maintained
as a limit on government power.  We need to say to the government that it
can control people thus far, and no farther.

There is also risk here to the principles of due process and presumption
of innocence.  This sidestepping of the normal governing procedures also
sidesteps the normal reviews and controls of government, including court
review to a great extent.  Proper procedures in matters of accusation and
determination of guilt are valuable because they prevent a system from
unintentional degeneration and deliberate or accidental misuse.  We protect
the rights of the innocent by protecting the rights of all, and we presume
people to be innocent until proven guilty because the danger of punishing
innocent people must be balanced with the desire to punish the guilty.

A drug-testing program operated by a private company threatens these
rights.  Consider also that Digital is a part of our society, and Digital
is therefore subject to government control just as much and individuals
are.  The rights that are valuable to individuals are also valuable to
Digital.  It is in Digital's interest to seek to limit the government's
control over our society.

Digital's Direct Concern

Newspaper and television reports about drugs have increased.  But an
increase in stories is not the same as an increase in problems.  Has
the use or abuse of illegal substances posed a problem to Digital?  To
what extent is product quality and cost affected?  These are the points
which affect Digital directly, the points that have to do with the
working of the company.  They are internal, and they are a part of the
process of running the company.

The influences we are experiencing now are external.  To some extent,
they are unreal -- things which could be eliminated without affecting
the company's ability to design, manufacture, and sell products.  When
decisions are made about a drug-testing program, the extent to which
drugs have really presented a problem should be considered.  The extent
to which drugs are in the media should be resisted.

If there are real problems with drugs, these should be made known to
people.  Flashy ads on television increase cynicism.  An intelligent
person knows that a picture of an egg on a frying pan does not give
them information about drugs, and that even if the picture were an
accurate analogy for some drug, it could not be accurate for all
drugs.  People also know that more scientific-sounding opinions can be
bantered back and forth endlessly.  What is needed is the truth.  If
Digital will have a drug awareness program, then make people aware of
actual problems which have caused Digital actual damage.  Show the truth
and let it speak for itself.

Law

The January/February 1989 issue of the Colorado American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) newsletter reports
a person in California was awarded $425,000 in a suit against a
company which fired her for refusing to submit to a drug test, and 
there was a similar award in Massachusetts.  We congratulate those states
that enact laws to protect privacy and those courts that recognize and
protect it.  Digital obviously needs to consider these protections when
designing a drug-testing program.

DRUG TEST PROBLEMS


Testing a Symptom

Chemical drug tests do not measure impairment.  They measure such things
as chemical concentrations.  It is one problem that such chemical concentrations
can be caused by things other than use or abuse of illegal substances.  But
even if chemical tests could precisely identify past use or abuse of illegal
substances, the tests do not measure impairment.  The ability of a person to
do a job is dependent on their alertness, their motor skills, and punctuality.

Substances are outlawed for political reasons.  These reasons are occasionally
based on science, but the process is political, and so the result is
basically political.  Illegal substances are not necessarily outlawed because
they will produce impairment that will affect Digital.  When substances do
produce impairment, such impairment does not necessarily continue until the
time when a person reports for work.  Exposure to controlled substances may
occur under circumstances in which the exposed person is not acting illegally,
including inadvertent exposure, exposure outside of the jurisdiction of the
United States, and prescription or other lawful use.  Chemical tests report
none of this.

And chemical tests do not just indicate use of illegal substances.  Since
tests measure chemicals which are indirectly the result of illegal substances,
the tests reveal additional information which is not pertinent to detection
of drug use or abuse.

Many people who oppose chemical tests would be agreeable to tests that
actually measured impairment.  We agree that Digital is paying for services
rendered, and so Digital has a valid interest in seeing those services
performed effectively and correctly.  But when chemical tests are used,
Digital measures something other than impairment; Digital measures something
in which the company has no legitimate interest.  That is an invasion of
privacy.

Misuse

Drug tests are prone to misuse.  When a person gives a sample of their
bodily fluids, they lose control of personal information.  This is an act
of trust, but trust is not appropriate in this situation because it has
been abused before.  The Colorado ACLU newsletter also reports that the
District of Columbia police department used the urine samples to test for
pregnancy, and promotions or job offers were delayed if a person tested
positive.

A human being is well-advised to fear what will happen out of their
sight.  Urine samples could also be used to look for legal drugs such
as anti-depressants or for diseases.  Digital asks for an enormous amount
of faith when it asks for a sample of a person's body.

Third Parties

Many employees will extend trust that Digital will not misuse chemical
tests, particularly if there is employee review of the process.  But this
trust cannot extend to strangers.  Digital is likely to contract drug-testing
work to separate companies.  Employees then need assurances that those
companies are trustworthy.

In addition to direct threats to privacy, there is the possibility that
personal information about people will be used for statistical
purposes.  Removing individual identification from personal information and
using it in statistical or other scientific studies is often considered
objective and not an invasion of privacy.  But errors in the removal of
individual identification can leave the test subjects
vulnerable.  For example, a database might not given an individual name,
but it might accidentally give an inquirer the test results of a female
aged 30 to 35 in cost center 123, a description which could correspond to
exactly one person who could be identified by name.  Even if individual
identification is not possible, statistical information can also be abused
by reference to groups small enough to cast aspersions on individuals, and by
misinterpretation which can adversely affect groups of people.  Regardless
of what use is made of the information, information about a person gathered
from their bodily fluids should be regarded as their property and not
made available to any person for any use other than that for which it was
collected.

There is a yet more potent threat.  The ACLU newsletter reports that the
United States Attorney's office subpoenaed the University of Florida for
results of drug tests given to students.  The circumvention of the
normal processes of government comes to a full circle; although the government
cannot test a person without probable cause, it has found a way to cause a
person to be tested and then to take the results.  This heinous disregard
for human privacy, rights, and dignity must be opposed.  This eliminates the
matter of trust; even if Digital could be trusted not to misuse test results,
the company clearly has no power to make such a guarantee.

False Positives

Drug tests are not accurate.  Inaccuracies exist because what is measured is
not the presence of the controlled substance itself and because the measurement
itself is prone to error.

Because of the difficulties of measuring the concentration of some substances,
chemical tests search for consequences of drug use, such as metabolites, instead
of the actual illegal substances.  But some legal drugs, foods, and natural
body functions produce the same metabolites as illegal substances or metabolites
which are so similar as to be indistinguishable by the tests used.  It is
impossible for any test for metabolites to eliminate this source of
error.  Certainly no employee should be compelled to reveal what legal drugs
they are using; this would carry the invasion of privacy even further.

The techniques of measurement are also prone to error.  Temperature, acidity,
and other elements of the test conditions must be carefully controlled.  In
professionally laboratories, test results will vary from batch to batch and
from laboratory to laboratory.  Mass-produced test kits are less accurate.

Tests for which the accuracy is questionnable are not appropriate evidence
on which to base determination of a person's guilt.

    
    Eric, I think you need to rethink the opening paragraph or you may lose
    your readership immediately.  You state that those affected by the
    contract were not notified in advance.  The following from the service
    delivery unit manager in a previous reply would indicate otherwise:
    
.138                

>    When we received the DFAR clause on the contract it caught everyone
>    off guard.  It took Digital almost 3 months to reply and I was working
>    toward having to decline the contract altogether. At all levels
>    of Digital I was told that it was going to be very difficult for
>    Digital to accept.  The message I was consistently given was the
>    fact that it was against 'Digital Culture'.  
    
>    All of the employees in the Unit were kept informed of the
>    possibilities of the testing program. I would have done this anyway,
>    but in this case I was instructed by my management to keep the
>    employees informed.  When the clause was accepted it was accepted
>    for Warner Robins only and only for those individuals with clearances
>    on this particular contract.
    
>    What this means is that to date there is no policy except for 10
>    people in GA.
    
    
    Are you saying that those directly affected by the contract which has
    been signed were not notified or that all those that may be affected by
    such a decision downstream were not notified/consulted?  If the latter,
    again, I'd reword the opening.
    
    Marge

    Re .212
    
    Comments from an armchair reviewer follow.
    
    I think you have covered all the major issues but you seriously
    need to rework the presentation. As it stands it is far too long
    and subjects are covered numerous times.
    
    You need a crisp 30 line summary up front detailing:
    
    	o Why drug testing is anathema to many employees
    	o Address the personal privacy/dignity issue
    	o Address negative connotations for Digital (lawsuits, loss
    	  of employee respect for the company etc)
    	o Address the 'no smoke without fire issue'
    	o Address the. Bodily fluids can be used for other things issue.
    
    At present your memo is over 500 lines long. I think you could reduce
    it to about 200 lines. This memo needs to be punchy and to the point.
    I'd also cut back on all the 'how governments should make law'
    sections. They are not directly relevent to Digital and its
    relationship with its employees.
    
    There are MANY good points in the memo, let's try and get them
    organized. Unfortnately my presentation skills suck. Is there anyone
    with really good presentation skills that could take a stab at
    organizingthe excellent material that Eric has put together.
               
    Dave

Re: .213

I agree with .214.  In addition, although this may seem obvious, I think
the letter needs to start out by saying that we are concerned that the DFARS
contract clause might lead to mandatory drug testing for all Digital
employees, not just employees working on defense contracts.  If someone
didn't understand that hidden assumption, the rest of the letter wouldn't
make as much sense.

				-- Bob

    One important point missing from Eric's presentation is about the
    ranks of people who will be tested.  He should point out that the
    people who have REAL responsibility have always excused themselves
    from the humiliating drug testing, while steadfastly forcing low
    ranking people to submit to the drug testing.  There are just too
    many examples of such blatant abuse of the power at the top.
    
    If and when digital decides that it needs to implement drug testing
    program, IT HAS TO START AT THE TOP of the hierarchy.
    
    - Vikas

    Re .213:
    
    I've rewording the first paragraphs a bit to make that clearer.
    
    
    Re .215, .216:
    
    Noted; I'm putting those in.
    
    
    Re .214:
    
    I intend to have a cover letter; that is not written yet.  I have just
    started to make an outline for it.  Actually, it looks like I'll have
    to write a cover letter and a summary.  The cover letter will express
    things like the fact that not every signer agrees to every part of the
    letter, but the signers do hold common concerns about the drug-testing
    issue.  I also wish to make it clear in the cover letter that we are
    expressing concerns, making suggestions, and requesting information.
    We are not stipulating conditions. 
    
    The summary will briefly describe the important issues.
    
    I am going to move the issues about government lower, along with
    changing the order of the other items a bit.  The order I am
    considering is PROCEDURE, SUGGESTIONS, HUMAN DIGNITY, DRUG TEST
    PROBLEMS, EMPLOYEE RIGHTS, EMPLOYEE INFORMATION, POLITICAL AND LEGAL
    CONCERNS.  I'm putting employee rights and information later because it
    seems appropriate to explain the reasons that rights and information
    are needed, and that is done in the earlier sections of human dignity
    and drug test problems.  For the same reason, the suggestions could go
    later, but I feel comfortable with having them where they are.  I'll
    put the political and legal concerns last as a recognition that it
    might be my personal bugaboo.  But I think there are other people that
    share those concerns, and they should be concerns to Digital as well.
    Remember that Digital has a different viewpoint than people; Digital
    the corporation doesn't have human rights, but it does have political
    concerns.  In addition, drug-testing is a threat to our society as well
    as a threat to our privacy, so I think the concerns are appropriate.
    
    I will re-read the section with a critical eye and see if I can
    stream-line it.  And I'll look for redundancy throughout the paper.
    Some things are mentioned in various ways -- sometimes an item has two
    aspects, such as employee rights under local law.  First, Digital must
    respect those rights.  Second, the employee should be informed of those
    rights.  When there are areas that are different aspects, I'll try to
    make the distinction sharper. 
    
    I agree that brevity is often useful, but I don't think the letter is
    going to get much shorter.  There are some places where I go into
    several paragraphs to explain a point, but most of the letter was
    generated by taking a list of the issues I and other suggested,
    organizing them into categories (and sometimes sub-groups of
    categories), and writing an explanation of each.  And each of those
    issues on the list is important in itself.  Maybe I can make up for the
    length in the summary. 
    
    
    				-- edp

        I get the impression from .217 that you are thinking of having
        many people sign this proposed letter.  I personally doubt that
        the number of signatures will have any impact on the people
        reading it; if the ideas are sound and clearly presented, then
        they will stand on their own.  If they are unsound, or are poorly
        presented, then the mere fact that many people have signed the
        letter will be irrelevant. 
        
        In any case, please refrain from posting any notes here that
        violate Policy 6.54 or any other of the Personnel Policies
        and Procedures.  I'm specifically concerned about soliciting
        other employees to sign what might be construed as a petition
        of grievances.  I leave it to you to exercise discretion.
        
        Tom

	Should Digital make it clear to DoD how much extra this clause will 
    cost?  For example, submit two bids, one that includes DFARS and one that
    excludes DFARS.  This should include all costs including worst case risks
    from employee suits, legal costs, loss of productivity and anything else 
    that might be even remotely related.

    Re .218:
    
    On the other hand, it's been suggested to me that the number of signers
    is important.  Perhaps Digital is true to its word and is concerned for
    employees.  But perhaps Digital is a business and employee rights are
    only a concern to the extent that treating employees well will earn
    Digital more money.  In that case, it does not matter if the ideas are
    sound or how well they are presented, because nobody will be listening.
    The important factor will be the number of employees.
    
    I'll work at both goals.
    
    I've read.  As John said in .81, it is not a violation of policy to
    solicit employees to make their opinions on a matter of importance
    known to Digital management.  I've used a conference previously to make
    a petition available to those who wish it (ZKO_SUGGESTIONS, for the bar
    codes at the ZK entrance); management addressed the petition, and I
    heard no objection to using the conference (operated by Personnel,
    which I presume knows the Personnel Policies and Procedures).
    
    My intent is to post the cover letter, summary, and letter with a
    letter to potential signers and a letter to those who wish to make
    copies of the petition available in their group or site.  I have
    planned to solicit people who wish to do so, but to recommend that they
    make the petition available to those who wish to sign but not campaign
    for signatures.  If necessary, I'll make and mail copies externally. 
                                                                        
    
    				-- edp 

        I have no objection to your making the letter available through
        this conference.  I would prefer that you not use this conference
        to "solicit" signatures, and especially would prefer that no one
        suggest using this conference to "vote" for the letter (sort of an
        electronic petition).  Again, I trust you to use discretion and
        apply your judgement to do what's right. 
        
        Tom

    Re .221:
    
    Okay, that sounds good to me.  I don't think soliciting would be very
    productive; Soapbox has provided ample experience in the futility of
    trying to sway opinion.  My intent is to locate people who want to
    participate.
    
    
    				-- edp 

    The two most common suggestions about the letter are to shorten it and
    remove the material about the governing process.
    
    I'd like to know how many people find the governing process an issue of
    concern to them.  Please feel free to respond here or send mail.  If
    you wish, I will count you and delete your mail immediately -- please
    indicate in your mail if you desire that.
                                          
    Also, the erroneous "engineer" has been changed to "employee".  My
    brain must have been thinking about another topic while I was typing. 
    
    
    				-- edp 

        Substantive comments and suggestions are welcome here, but if all
        you wish is to register a "yes" or "no" opinion on the "governing
        process" content, please use MAIL to respond directly to edp. 
        
        Tom

    re: .223 (Eric)
    
    	   First, I'd like to thank you for putting all of the information
    	together into one place.  As I read through it, I began to see
    	where many sections of it would be extremely useful in a letter
    	I am preparing to send to my representatives in government.
    	Naturally, I will remove all references to Digital, and will 
    	retain only those clauses which deal directly with the subject
    	at hand.  If there is any interest, I will post the resulting
    	letter here for others to use as they see fit.
    
    	   In answer to the two concerns that have been expressed about
    	your text, I have a few comments.  On the brevity, I don't see
    	that as a particularly salient point.  There are indeed many 
    	real concerns about this latest attempt to invade the privacy 
    	of the American populace, and I feel they must be explored in
    	some detail.  If anything, I'd suggest that the document be
    	expanded to cover some of the points more concisely.  Remember,
    	when reading printed matter, the length is less important than
    	the content.  Only in Notes is 500 lines considered particularly
    	long.  Indeed, it would hardly make a decent short story, in terms
    	of fiction.
    
    	   As to the concerns about how we should be governed, they are
    	important to my letter to congress, though perhaps less significant
    	with regard to the letter to personnel.  Digital is not, at present,
    	an official branch of the U.S. Government.  As such, it is not
    	constrained by the rules that govern our legislators.  I think
    	you have done a good job of illustrating why Digital should be
    	concerned about such issues, but is the intended audience in a
    	position to affect such policy decisions regarding the company's
    	political positions?  I don't think so.
    
    	- Greg

        Actually, Digital tries very hard to avoid taking positions on
        political matters.  I believe this is codified in the corporate
        Personnel Policies and Procedures manual, but I'd have to go look
        for it to be certain. 
        
        In an earlier note, I indicated that I thought Laurie Margolies
        was Corporate Employee Relations Manager, based on her number
        matching that listed in the Digital Telephone Directory.  I've
        since learned from Laurie that that's an error in the directory
        that they're trying to get fixed.  The manager is Erline Belton,
        and she is able to influence Digital's policies and procedures
        in so far as they impact employee relations, and I think that's
        what edp's trying to influence with his letter.  I believe
        that it is possible to influence how we work at Digital, even
        if we can't influence the world at large.
        
        Tom

    I've been very interested in following the developments in this
    note and plane to keep in touch, but there is a matter which is
    of concern to me, while probably not very pressing. As an employee
    of a foreign subsidiary, I'd like to know what the impact of implementing
    drug testing at Digital would be for foreign employees (read employees
    in foreign subsidiaries, not foreign employees in DEC US). Is there
    any information on how that would affect us overseas?
    		Thanks for any input,
    			Denis (Digital Equipment France).

    There is a three-page article in the current February/March 1989 issue
    of MGMT MEMO which just arrived in my inbox.  In the article, entitled
    "DIGITAL Grapples with Drug Issue," Cyndi Bloom of U.S. Field Employee
    Relations is quoted as saying, "Digital is working directly and through
    industry associations to have all commercial products and services
    excluded, but it now looks probable that some Digital employees, who
    work on contracts that require them to have government security
    clearances, may have to undergo some form of drug testing." The author
    adds, "The extent of this testing will be determined by a number of
    factors, including the nature of the work the employee performs under a
    specific contract, and the public health, safety or national security
    risk that could result from inadequate performance."
    
    The article discusses communications with employees: "Digital is now
    trying to determine what changes we must make and how to implement them
    fairly and sensitively.  All anticipated changes will be communicated
    to employees through Personnel Perspectives, MGMT MEMO, LIVE WIRE and
    local newsletters as quickly as possible.  In addition, in Q4, Digital
    plans to distribute a Field training package to Field Personnel and
    then to Field managers.  Later, a Field information package is planned
    for employees who deal with customers."
    
    

    re: .228
    
    > "...specific contract, and the public health, safety or national security
    > risk that could result from inadequate performance."

    That's one of those "it means whatever we want it to mean" clauses.
    I sure hope we get a VERY narrow definition of that clause.
    
    Thanks for sharing that with us.
    
    Bob
    

    I'm on loan to the consortium Sematech.  DEC along with the Department 
    of Defense and 13 other semiconductor manufactures are the members.  In 
    December during a question and answer period at an all-hands meeting, 
    the CEO, Dr. Robert Noyce was asked if Sematech was considering implementing
    a drug testing program.  He's single word answer was a strong NO.  
    I for one applauded that answer.  Curious that a CEO of a company that 
    gets 50% of its funding from the DoD in what is considered to be a 
    strategic industry would just say NO to drug testing.  Why DEC would 
    I can't even begin to understand.

    Bob

	Is Sematech a for-profit, not-for-profit, or non-profit?  If either 
of the latter two choices, the CEO's answer is not that shocking.  He doesn't 
have stockholders to answer to.

	DEC has stockholders that like to see good bottom lines!  Personnel 
issues are our problem.

>	Is Sematech a for-profit, not-for-profit, or non-profit?  If either 
> of the latter two choices, the CEO's answer is not that shocking.  He doesn't 
> have stockholders to answer to.

For profit or not, any organization has masters to answer to by delivering
what was expected.  SOMEBODY put up the money, and expects something back.
Kudos to Noyce or anyone who can find room to do what's right beyond
whatever his organization's bottom line is.

RE: SEMATECH

 >> SOMEBODY put up the money, and expects something back.
    
    There are fourteen member companies, all for-profit types, that
    put up part of the money.  But the largest contributor to SEMATECH
    (by far) is DoD.  I applaud Noyce for his stand, but will be watching
    curiously to see how long he manages to avoid drug testing.
    
    					Pat
    					SEMATECH Corporate Account Team

    I also applaud Bob Noyce for his stand, which has a far-reaching
    impact.  As the father of the integrated circuit, and the co-founder
    of Intel, he's one of the leading spokesmen for high-tech industries.
    
    Hopefully, other CEO's who realize that their greatest assets are
    their employees will learn from his example, and stand up to the
    government's "quick fix" tactics.
    
    Geoff

    I haven't had much luck at pruning the letter -- it's tough to cut out
    one's creation.  And I write better when the fire strikes.  I think I'm
    probably going to leave the government stuff in.  Digital is affected
    by what happens in this society, and it shouldn't hurt to have it in
    there.  (16 pages isn't bad in paper form; it's just that notes are
    usually shorter.)
    
    Anyway, here are two cover pages, a note to coordinators for gathering
    signatures and a note to potential signers.  I'm just putting them up
    for quick review.  And there is the cover page of the actual letter to
    Digital, which will be followed by the summary and then the body of the
    letter.  What should I say or not say in these pages? 
    
    In the next response, I will post two versions of a summary, which will
    need more in the way of review and suggestions. 
    


                         DIGITAL'S DRUG-TESTING PROGRAM


                              Note to Coordinators

           My intent is to be fairly passive about collecting
           signatures.  I am not establishing a signature drive.  I
           have written this letter to Digital to express the concerns
           of employees in general, and I am making it available for
           distribution and signing by those who wish to make their
           concerns known.  My goal is not to convince people to sign
           but hopefully to give those who wish to sign the
           opportunity to do so.

           Obviously, I cannot contact each Digital employee, so any
           help others wish to provide is appreciated.

           The environment varies from location to location, so use
           your own judgement when making this letter available for
           signing.  Sometimes it might be appropriate to send a mail
           message to people in your area, letting them know the
           letter is available for reading by those who might be
           interested.  Or you could use word of mouth or a bulletin
           board available for employee use.

           To prevent the collected results from being a mass of
           varied papers, I would like to have uniformity.  Please
           print the letter (the signatures page at least) on plain,
           white, 8 1/2" by 11" paper with a letter-quality printer,
           with the letter oriented in the normal vertical manner.  If
           you do not have easy access to such a printer, please
           contact me; I will make copies available, at my expense if
           need be.

           A blank signature page can be photocopied or printed
           repeatedly if necessary.  On the other hand, even small
           numbers of signatures are welcome.

           Please send whatever you have to me by April ?.
                                 
           				Eric Postpischil
           				Alien::Postpischil
           				DTN 381-1172
           				ZKO1-3/H01  
                                                                       




                         DIGITAL'S DRUG-TESTING PROGRAM
           

                           Note to Potential Signers

           On October 31, 1988, the Department of Defense started
           requiring a new clause in Defense contracts.  This clause
           establishes requirements for a drug-free work force and
           includes provisions for a drug-testing program.

           Digital has agreed to the clause.

           With what I have learned of this from Digital, my own
           knowledge, and information from others, I have written a
           letter to express the concerns of employees.  If you share
           these concerns, your signature is welcome.

           This letter is written to represent the combined concerns
           of different people.  It is not expected that you will
           agree with every portion of it.  This is stated in the
           letter.  This is a joint letter with a common cause shared
           by people with varying interests, so you do not have to
           agree with all of the letter to sign it.

           If you should find part of the letter objectionable enough
           to prevent you from signing it, please feel free to write a
           statement indicating that you support the letter with the
           exclusion of specified parts and to sign that statement. 
           Other alternatives would be to contact me to arrange to
           sign an altered version of the letter or even to write your
           own letter to Digital.

           The date on which I plan to submit the letter to Digital is
           April ?.  If you wish further information about the letter
           or the contract clause, please contact me.

           				Eric Postpischil
           				Alien::Postpischil
           				DTN 381-1172
           				ZKO1-3/H01  





                         DIGITAL'S DRUG-TESTING PROGRAM
           
              
                   A Letter to Digital Equipment Corporation

           It has come to our attention that Digital has agreed to the
           Drug-Free Work Force clause in contracts from the
           Department of Defense, and that this clause contains
           requirements that Digital establish a drug-testing program.
           This letter is to express our concerns as employees, make
           suggestions, and request information about drug testing and
           Digital.  The time is premature for stronger action, but we
           feel it is not inappropriate to look into what is
           happening.

           None of us are authorized to represent the others or to
           impose conditions, although some individuals feel so
           strongly about these issues that they would, albeit
           reluctantly, seek other employment.

           The conditions that the government is imposing on its
           contracts with Digital are not compatible with Digital's
           values.  The relationship between Digital and the
           government is a two-way street, and we hold more than a few
           high cards in our hand.  It is important for Digital's
           upper management to tell the government that we stand
           consistently behind our corporate values and integrity. 
           The message to Digital's employees that we trust each other
           and do not intend to compromise our values will serve to
           reinforce the high morale that underlines the quality of
           our work.

           This letter is written to represent the combined concerns
           of different people.  It is a joint letter with a common
           cause shared by people with varying interests.  So it
           should be understood that each signer does not necessarily
           agree with every part of the letter but does have a general
           commitment to the statement made herein.

    Here are two versions of a summary page.  For the first, I took the
    suggested topics for a summary page and wrote them up.  For the second,
    I scanned the letter I wrote and tried to write one-liners for the
    various topics, sometimes merging them. 
    
    There have been comments about the length of the letter; my goal was to
    explain each topic in the letter.  In compensation, I would like to
    give the summary a good deal of punch, so please be free with your
    suggestions.  If it would be easier, you might print a copy, edit it,
    and mail me the edited version.  My mailstop is ZKO1-3/H01.
    
    Which version of the summary is the better approach?  Or should I mix
    them?  Any part of these summaries can be reworded -- if you've got a
    more clear way to make a point, let me know.  Some parts of the
    summaries can be removed or just given an acknowledgement in a list --
    which parts? 
    
    
    				-- edp





                         DIGITAL'S DRUG-TESTING PROGRAM
           

                                    SUMMARY


           Opposition to drug testing comes from different motivations
           in different people.  Some people want to exercise their
           own values.  Some people just want to be let alone.  And
           some people find this exercise of power unreasonable. 
           There are two key points here.  A person does not need to
           be a drug user or a drug abuser to object to drug testing. 
           And the common abhorrence of drug testing is an indication
           of the extent to which it is an intrusion.

           Privacy is invaded by drug testing because it reveals
           information.  Dignity is assaulted because testing is
           humiliating.  Respect is eliminated because testing shows a
           lack of trust.

           The disadvantages of drug testing must be examined and made
           known.  Digital risks lawsuits, loss of valuable employees,
           decreased morale, excessive dependence on Defense
           contracts, and reduction of future negotiating power with
           the government and other parties.

           The normal purpose for implementing a program is to achieve
           the goal of the program.  In this case, that would be to
           control the cost of drug abuse.  However, Digital is
           implementing a program not for that purpose but because of
           external pressure.  Digital has not previously found
           sufficient cause to implement a program and has in fact
           rejected earlier pressure.  If the real target of a
           drug-testing program does not in fact exist in Digital,
           what target will this drug-testing program find?

           The ramifications of drug testing must be explored. 
           Physical ramifications include the fact that bodily fluids
           and drug tests can be misused in many ways, including false
           interpretation, personal motives, and testing for more than
           drugs.  Political ramifications include the concern that
           this initial step will lead to mandatory testing for all
           employees.





                         DIGITAL'S DRUG-TESTING PROGRAM
           

                                    SUMMARY


           Digital's acceptance of a drug-testing program comes as a
           surprise and is a drastic change in policy.

           Employees are significantly affected and have a place in
           decisions about this matter.

           Information is sought.

           A drug-testing program imposes costs upon Digital.

           It is desirable to reject, nullify, or mitigate repugnant
           contract clauses.

           Employees should not be required to submit to intrusive
           tests.

           Drug tests are controversial because they do not actually
           measure impairment, they are prone to several types of
           error and misuse, and there are threats to privacy
           including and beyond detecting drug use.

           Employees are human beings deserving of autonomy, privacy,
           respect, dignity, and compensation. 

           Digital needs to deal justly with its employees, and
           justice requires the observance of proper procedures,
           including probable cause, rights to information and cross
           examination, control of evidence and repeatability of
           tests, secrecy of personal information, and correction of
           errors.

           Relevant information includes details of program
           implementation, legal rights, details of testing
           procedures, and understanding of the admnistration of the
           program and its consequences.

           Digital also has to consider the consequences of yielding
           to external influences, of being a part of our changing
           society, of the political hazards of this matter, and of
           federal, state, and local laws.

           The actual threat to Digital represented by drug abuse
           should guide Digital's actions more than the external,
           political imposition of a repugnant contract clause.

    I prefer the first, Eric.  Thanks for your efforts,
    
    Marge

    I'm planning a signature page which will have a brief statement and
    space for a number of signatures.
    
    For the statement, I am considering:
    
    	We are concerned about a drug-testing program and ask
    	Digital to consider the concerns, suggestions, and requests
    	expressed in this letter.
    
    For the signatures, what is appropriate?  Printed and signed name are
    necessary.  On a previous petition about the bar codes at the ZK
    entrance, I made no indication, intending to collect only signatures.
    On their own, some people wrote in their badge or cost center.  I'm not
    sure I see the point in that.  Perhaps a site code on each page would
    show geographic distribution of concern (or lack thereof).
    
    Unless I hear otherwise, I'll just make up a form for printed name and
    signature.
    
    
    				-- edp 

    I've got the letter almost ready for circulation.  I am planning on
    posting it here and in Soapbox.  Are there any other conferences where
    the topic of drug testing has been discussed or where it might be
    appropriate?  If so, please let me know so I can contact the
    moderators. 
    
    Is four weeks sufficient time to wait for signatures?
    
    
    				-- edp

    A note of caution.  My understanding is that letter writing and
    signature campaigns are heavily frowned upon and may even be against
    Personnel policy...but I will have to admit that I have not yet checked
    the policy book.  If memory serves me, several years ago a signature
    campaign in PKO was squelched by Personnel and the participants were
    told to use the management chain and open door method to air their
    issues.  I will try to track down the references.  Has anyone else
    had similar experience with this sort of thing?

    I did a quick check of the VTX version of Personnel Policies and
    Procedures and the only thing that I could find that applied was
    two policies...6.02 Open Door Policy and 6.19 Solicitation.  I won't
    bother to extract and post here but if you wish to read them online,
    type "VTX ORANGEBOOK" or look for Personnel Policies and Procedures_US
    under Employee Benefits and Services on the Corporate VTX Library.
    To do a quick reference, once you're in the infobase, hit PF1, then
    keypad 7 and type the policy number in the format "S 6.02" and/or
    "S 6.19".
    
    I would also check with your Personnel department on how to deal with
    this sort of issue.  Personally, I see no problem with someone writing
    a memo to an appopriate responsible manager regarding Digital's
    philosophy or plans with regard to drug testing. I'm not sure I would
    even have a problem with asking people to write their own memo to the
    appropriate person to air their concerns.  Circulating a memo for
    signatures is quite a different approach and smacks of organizing the
    massess....I won't say the "U" word.  This is not the preferred way of
    dealing with problems in Digital and is probably *very* risky. 
                                                    

Well, the solicitation policy only prohibits solicitation during work time, and
by definition NOONE reads this conference during work time, so as long is this
conference, cafeterias, and break rooms are the only places that active solici-
tation is done, it certainly doesn't violate any policies.

Is it the Digital Way?  Maybe not, but neither is drug testing.

/john

    Yea, I don't know that solicitation applies.  That's probably
    stretching it at bit far.  I tend to think they meant soliciting for
    personal gain or non-Digital events.  I'm also not totally sure of the
    application of the Open Door Policy.  While it states how you should go
    about dealing with issues it does not specifically say you cannot use
    other methods.  In my interpretation it does apply but I could see how
    there could be other interpretations.  

    Okay, here we go.  The final version is in the next response, and I am
    including a separate copy of the signature page to make printing extras
    easy.
    
    
    				-- edp

                         DIGITAL'S DRUG-TESTING PROGRAM


                              Note to Coordinators

           My intent is to be fairly passive about collecting
           signatures.  I am not establishing a signature drive.  I
           have written this letter to Digital to express the concerns
           of employees in general, and I am making it available for
           distribution and signing by those who wish to make their
           concerns known.  My goal is not to convince people to sign
           but hopefully to give those who wish to sign the
           opportunity to do so.

           Obviously, I cannot contact each Digital employee
           personally, so any help others wish to provide is
           appreciated.

           The environment varies from location to location, so use
           your own judgment when making this letter available for
           signing.  Sometimes it might be appropriate to send a mail
           message to people in your area, letting them know the
           letter is available for reading by those who might be
           interested.  Or you could use word of mouth or a bulletin
           board available for employee use.  You might gather
           signatures in your site or just in your group, perhaps
           letting somebody else gather signatures at another group in
           your site.

           To prevent the collected results from being a mass of
           varied papers, I would like to have uniformity.  Please
           print the letter (the signatures page at least) on plain,
           white, 8 1/2" by 11" paper with a letter-quality printer,
           with the letter oriented in the normal vertical manner.  If
           you do not have easy access to such a printer, please
           contact me; I will make copies available, at my expense if
           need be.

           A blank signature page can be photocopied or printed
           repeatedly if necessary (and the numbering from 1 to 25 can
           be left as is; I will add them up).  On the other hand,
           even small numbers of signatures are welcome.

           Please send whatever signatures you have to me by April 14,
           and possibly even keep me informed before then.  (It may
           help if we can let potential signers know how many
           signatures there are so far.)  If you would like to provide
           a return address (preferably electronic), I will let you
           know what I hear from Digital.
                                 
           				Eric Postpischil
           				Alien::Postpischil
           				DTN 381-1172
           				ZKO1-3/H01  
                                                                       




                         DIGITAL'S DRUG-TESTING PROGRAM
           

                           Note to Potential Signers

           On October 31, 1988, the Department of Defense started
           requiring a new clause in Defense contracts.  This clause
           establishes requirements for a drug-free work force and
           includes provisions for a drug-testing program.

           Digital has agreed to the clause.

           With what I have learned of this from Digital, my own
           knowledge, and information from others, I have written a
           letter to express the concerns of some employees.  If you share
           these concerns, your signature is welcome, alone or in a
           group.

           This letter is written to represent the combined concerns
           of different people.  It is not expected that you will
           agree with every portion of it.  This is stated in the
           letter.  This is a joint letter with a common cause shared
           by people with varying interests, so you do not have to
           agree with all of the letter to sign it.

           If you should find part of the letter objectionable enough
           to prevent you from signing it, please feel free to write a
           statement indicating that you support the letter with the
           exclusion of specified parts and to sign that statement. 
           Other alternatives would be to contact me to arrange to
           sign an altered version of the letter or even to write your
           own letter to Digital.

           I plan on waiting for signatures until April 14, and then I
           will submit the letter to Digital.  The texts of a
           preliminary memo on this issue and of the contract clause
           are appended.  If you wish further information about this
           letter, the contract clause, or how signature collection is
           going, please contact me.

           				Eric Postpischil
           				Alien::Postpischil
           				DTN 381-1172
           				ZKO1-3/H01  








                         DIGITAL'S DRUG-TESTING PROGRAM
           
              
                   A Letter to Digital Equipment Corporation

           It has come to our attention that Digital has agreed to the
           Drug-Free Work Force clause in contracts from the
           Department of Defense, and that this clause contains
           requirements that Digital establish a drug-testing program.
           This letter is to express our concerns as employees, make
           suggestions, and request information about drug testing and
           Digital.  The time is premature for stronger action, but we
           feel it is not inappropriate to look into and participate
           in what is happening now.

           None of us are authorized to represent the others or to
           impose conditions, although some individuals feel so
           strongly about these issues that they would, albeit
           reluctantly, seek other employment.

           The conditions that the government is imposing on its
           contracts with Digital are not compatible with Digital's
           values.  The relationship between Digital and the
           government is a two-way street, and we hold more than a few
           high cards in our hand.  It is important for Digital's
           upper management to tell the government that we stand
           consistently behind our corporate values and integrity. 
           The message to Digital's employees that we trust each other
           and do not intend to compromise our values will serve to
           reinforce the high morale that underlines the quality of
           our work.

           This letter is written to represent the combined concerns
           of different people.  It is a joint letter with a common
           cause shared by people with varying interests.  So it
           should be understood that each signer does not necessarily
           agree with every part of the letter but does have a general
           commitment to the statements made herein.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program              2




                                    SUMMARY


           Opposition to drug testing comes from different motivations
           in different people.  Some people want to exercise their
           own values.  Some people just want to be let alone.  And
           some people find this exercise of power unreasonable. 
           There are two key points here.  A person does not need to
           be a drug user or a drug abuser to object to drug testing. 
           And the common abhorrence of drug testing is an indication
           of the extent to which it is an intrusion.

           Privacy is invaded by drug testing because it reveals
           personal information.  Dignity is assaulted because testing
           is humiliating.  Respect is eliminated because testing
           shows a lack of trust.

           The disadvantages of drug testing must be examined and made
           known.  Digital risks lawsuits, loss of valuable employees,
           decreased morale, excessive dependence on Defense
           contracts, and reduction of future negotiating power with
           the government and other parties.  There are dangers that
           bodily fluids and drug tests can be misused, including
           false interpretation, personal motives, and testing for
           more than drugs.  The risk that this first step will lead
           eventually to mandatory testing for all employees must be
           evaluated.
           
           The actual threat to Digital represented by drug abuse
           should guide Digital's actions more than the external,
           political imposition of a repugnant contract clause.  Our
           relationship with external parties should be to provide
           quality products and services.  Drug testing is not a good
           role for Digital to have, and employee rights and dignity
           should not be sold to customers.

           If Digital implements a drug-testing program, we ask that
           the safeguards recommended herein be considered, such as
           assigning only volunteers to assignments requiring drug
           testing.  But we would prefer the better choice, that
           Digital reject drug testing.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program              3
 
 


                                   PROCEDURE


                                   Suddenness

           The immediate reaction to news that there will be a
           drug-testing program is "What's going on here?".  Many
           employees learned about the possibility of a drug-testing
           program which concerns them only after Digital had already
           entered into a contract requiring such a program.  Our
           current knowledge is that Digital has entered into at least
           one such contract, with additional contracts on the way. 
           There is concern that a drug-testing program could affect
           all employees, directly or indirectly.  The perception is
           that this has occurred suddenly, and we need information
           about what is happening.

           Not only were many employees not notified prior to entering
           into a contract that has a potential of affecting them, but
           information presented through internal memo or Digital
           Video Network is that Digital is now determining what is
           necessary to comply with Department of Defense Federal
           Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 223.75. 
           This is confusing, because it would seem proper to
           determine the implications of a contract before signing it.

                                Employee Impact

           The creation of a drug-testing program anywhere within
           Digital is of interest to employees throughout the company.
           Such an event represents a significant change in policy. 
           It gives us thought about the respect which will be given
           to employees, and we are concerned about what requirements
           Digital feels free to place on its employees in the future.
           And of course there is the concern that a drug-testing
           program will, now or in the future, be applied to all
           employees.

           The lack of employee involvement in the decision is
           disturbing.  Digital is attempting to add to the
           requirements of the jobs of some employees.  Surely
           employment involves two parties, and both parties should
           consent to a change in the relationship.  Matters of
           privacy and dignity are among the many discussed below;
           drug testing is a serious matter.  On a matter of such
           importance, it is discourteous not to ask "Would you mind?"
           or even to solicit opinions.  Instead, we are concerned
           that Digital is making decisions about its employees
           without giving those employees the consideration that they
           deserve as human beings and as parties to the employment
           relationship.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program              4




                                  Information

           Announcement of Digital's agreement to a drug-testing
           requirement came as a surprise to many, and it came after
           the fact.  Even since that announcement, there has been
           little news.  We have been told that Digital is making
           decisions about the implications of the DFARS requirement,
           but we do not know what employee involvement or
           consideration there is in this process.  We would like to
           know what is happening.  We believe that employees have a
           role here, and that they should take part in deciding what
           will happen to themselves.

           To this end, we seek information as quickly as possible. 
           One common speculation is about the scope of the program,
           both immediate and in the long term.  Are employees outside
           individual contracting units affected?  Are employees
           outside the United States affected?  If these employees are
           not affected now, might Digital include them in the future?
           Answers to these questions, Digital's interpretation of the
           DFARS clause, and comments about the issues expressed
           throughout this document are desired.

                                Corporate Impact

           The DFARS drug-testing requirement places obligations upon
           Digital, and, like all things in this world, these
           obligations will have a cost.  In addition, agreeing to
           drug testing has implications about the character of the
           corporation.  The agreement is not only a change in
           Digital's personnel relations; it has implications about
           retaining control in the face of pressures from external
           parties.  These are discussed in detail below, but the
           magnitude of this change raises questions about the way in
           which it was made.  To what extent does agreement to the
           DFARS requirement represent corporate policy?  The
           precedent that has been set here is suitable matter for the
           highest level of the corporation.  Has policy been set on
           that level?

                                 Current Action

           Decisions about Digital's drug-testing program are being
           made now.  There are factors that need to be considered in
           these decisions.  The actual meaning of the DFARS clause
           needs to be resolved.  For example, it states that
           "commercial or commercial-type" products are excluded.  To
           what extent does this apply to Digital products?  Will
           Digital consider appropriate alternatives as permitted by
           the clause?  We would like to know what Digital is doing
           now.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program              5




           Digital has in the past rejected doing business where the
           customer required as a condition contractual clauses which
           were repugnant to the dignity of the employee as a person. 
           The decision to accept the DFARS clause is a change in
           previous policy.  What made the Defense clause different? 
           We seek to understand the motivations that have changed our
           employer.

           Digital is a very special place to work, and the principal
           reason for this is a corporate philosophy of respecting the
           integrity and dignity of its employees.  Our concern is
           that these corporate values should be consistently
           championed from the highest levels of Digital.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program              6




                                  SUGGESTIONS


           In general, we seek Digital's help in dealing with this
           intrusion on our persons.  We can express our opposition to
           our representatives in Congress, but we have no
           representatives in the Department of Defense.  This change
           in our lives comes not through the normal political process
           of law-making, but through a separate agency which seeks to
           act through our employer.  We realize this places Digital
           in an undeserved position, but if Digital yields the
           circumvention of the normal process will have succeeded. 
           Thus, we request Digital oppose intrusion on the privacy
           and dignity of its employees.

                                   Rejection

           We naturally would prefer that Digital not sign contracts
           containing repugnant clauses, and we suggest that this be
           done when it is possible to negotiate a contract without
           such a clause or when it is possible to make the hard
           decision to reject the business.  For reasons given
           throughout this document, that decision can be the proper
           one because of the benefits it provides.  Digital could
           also seek to repeal or modify the Defense Department rule
           requiring the offending clause.  Certainly Digital is not
           the only company affected by this rule.  Perhaps other
           companies with shared interests could jointly express the
           concerns of this matter to the government.  This is a
           desirable course of action in any event, because this
           clause places obligations on Digital which will exact a
           cost, and the government should not be permitted to believe
           that it may take action freely.  All members of this
           society, persons and corporations, need to seek to regulate
           their government.  It is necessary that neither Digital nor
           its employees remain silent.

           Objection to the Department of Defense requirements could
           also be shown by submitting two bids for each contract, one
           including the cost for the Drug-Free Work Force clause and
           one not.  In this way, we can show the undesirability of
           the clause.

           It is also important to recognize the possibility that
           acceptance of the DFARS clause will lend support to others
           seeking to request similar conditions of Digital.  Such a
           trend should be controlled before it can start.  We suggest
           that strict policy on this matter be set as soon as
           possible.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program              7




                        Nullification Through Local Law

           When Digital does make the unfortunate choice to accept an
           undesirable clause, we suggest that the clause be mitigated
           to whatever degree possible.  For example, DFARS Subpart
           223.75 is nullified when inconsistent with state or local
           law.  Employees would be grateful to Digital for showing
           support for legislation protecting the privacy and dignity
           of human beings.

                                   Mitigation

           In those places where local law does not protect the
           employee, Digital can seek to make a drug-testing program
           as respectful as possible.  To the extent possible, testing
           should be voluntary and non-intrusive.  Possibly a signed
           agreement by the employee not to use drugs will satisfy the
           DFARS clause.

           The DFARS clause encourages the implementation of
           alternative approaches.  The stated objectives of the
           clause include the control of costs, delay, and risks of
           lessened productivity and reliability and greater
           absenteeism.  We submit that an effective way to meet these
           objectives is to directly measure or observe productivity,
           reliability, and absenteeism.  When problems in these areas
           are detected, they should be corrected, even if drug abuse
           is not the cause, so this approach is beneficial without
           being objectionable to many people.  When there is a
           problem, Digital should focus on the performance issue, as
           has been policy in the past.

                               Employee Autonomy

           It is desirable that a person retain control of their own
           body.  For this purpose, it is desirable that assignment to
           a job affected by drug-testing requirements be voluntary,
           and that non-prejudicial reassignment to another position
           be available when requested.  Employees should be given
           information about a drug-testing program so that they may
           make their own choices.  A person should be permitted to
           refuse to submit to actions they find offensive, and such
           refusal should be possible without fear of undue
           repercussions.

                                 Implementation

           The greatest impact of a drug-testing program falls on the
           employees.  It is important that employees should
           participate in the design and execution of any such
           program.  This gives employees the means to ensure a
           program will not be more extensive than necessary, to
           verify that it is not abused or misused, and to retain some
           measure of control over their lives.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program              8




           The DFARS clause suggests testing of employees in positions
           of trust and confidence, and the positions accorded the
           most trust and confidence are those of upper management. 
           Applying a drug-testing program uniformly has the
           advantages of showing, at least nominally, that the program
           is not an exercise of power and control over employees.  If
           a program were to be applied discriminately, it would be a
           slur to those who are tested, a statement that they are
           pawns and are not worthy of respect, dignity, or trust.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program              9




                               DRUG TEST PROBLEMS


                               Testing a Symptom

           Chemical drug tests do not measure impairment.  They
           measure such things as chemical concentrations.  One
           failing of these tests is that such chemical concentrations
           can be caused by things other than use or abuse of illegal
           substances.  But even if chemical tests could precisely
           identify past use or abuse of illegal substances, the tests
           do not measure impairment.  The ability of a person to do a
           job is dependent on alertness, motor skills, and
           punctuality.

           Substances are outlawed for political reasons.  These
           reasons are occasionally based on science, but the process
           is political, and so the result is basically political. 
           Illegal substances are not necessarily outlawed because
           they will produce impairment that will affect Digital. 
           When substances do produce impairment, such impairment does
           not necessarily continue until the time when a person
           reports for work.  Exposure to controlled substances may
           occur under circumstances in which the exposed person is
           not acting illegally.  These include inadvertent exposure,
           exposure outside of the jurisdiction of the United States,
           and prescription or other lawful use.  Chemical tests
           report none of this.
           
           Many people who oppose chemical tests would be agreeable to
           tests that actually measured impairment.  We agree that
           Digital is paying for services rendered, and so Digital has
           a valid interest in seeing those services performed
           effectively and correctly.  But when chemical tests are
           used, Digital measures something other than impairment;
           Digital measures something in which the company has no
           legitimate interest.  That is an invasion of privacy.

                                     Misuse

           Drug tests are prone to misuse.  When a person gives a
           sample of their bodily fluids, they lose control of
           personal information.  This is an act of trust, but trust
           is not appropriate in this situation because it has been
           abused before.  The January/February 1989 issue of the
           Colorado American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) newsletter
           reports that the District of Columbia police department
           used the urine samples to test for pregnancy, and
           promotions or job offers were delayed if a person tested
           positive.

           A human being is well advised to fear what will happen out
           of their sight.  Urine samples could also be used to look
           for legal drugs such as anti-depressants or for diseases. 
           Digital asks for an enormous amount of faith when it asks
           for a sample of a person's body.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program             10




                                 Third Parties

           Many employees will extend trust that Digital will not
           misuse chemical tests, particularly if there is employee
           review of the process.  But this trust cannot extend to
           strangers.  Digital is likely to contract drug-testing work
           to separate companies.  Employees then need assurances that
           those companies are trustworthy.

           In addition to direct threats to privacy, there is the
           possibility that personal information about people will be
           used for statistical purposes.  Removing individual
           identification from personal information and using it in
           statistical or other scientific studies is often considered
           objective and not an invasion of privacy.  But errors in
           the removal of individual identification can leave the test
           subjects vulnerable.  For example, a database might not
           give an individual name, but it might accidentally give an
           inquirer the test results of females aged 30 to 35 in cost
           center 123, a description which could correspond to exactly
           one person who could be identified by name.  Even if
           individual identification is not possible, statistical
           information can also be abused by reference to groups small
           enough to cast aspersions on individuals and by
           misinterpretation which can adversely affect groups of
           people.  Regardless of the purpose or circumstance,
           information about a person gathered from their bodily
           fluids should be regarded as their property and not made
           available to any person for any use other than that for
           which it was collected.

           There is a yet more potent threat.  The ACLU newsletter
           reports that the United States Attorney's office subpoenaed
           the University of Florida for results of drug tests given
           to students.  The circumvention of the normal processes of
           government comes full circle; although the government
           cannot test a person without probable cause, it has found a
           way to cause a person to be tested and then to take the
           results.  This heinous disregard for human privacy, rights,
           and dignity must be opposed.  This eliminates the matter of
           trust; even when we trust Digital not to misuse test
           results, the company clearly has no power to make such a
           guarantee for third parties.

                                False Positives

           Drug tests are not accurate.  Inaccuracies exist because
           what is measured is not the presence of the controlled
           substance itself and because the measurement itself is
           prone to error.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program             11




           Because of the difficulties of measuring the concentration
           of some substances, chemical tests search for consequences
           of drug use, such as metabolites, instead of the actual
           illegal substances.  But some legal drugs, foods, and
           natural body functions produce metabolites which are the
           same as those produced by illegal substances or which are
           so similar as to be indistinguishable.  It is impossible
           for any test for metabolites to eliminate this source of
           error.  Certainly no employee should be compelled to reveal
           what legal drugs they are using; this would carry the
           invasion of privacy even further.

           The techniques of measurement are also prone to error. 
           Temperature, acidity, and other elements of the test
           conditions must be carefully controlled.  In professional
           laboratories, test results will vary from batch to batch
           and from laboratory to laboratory.  Mass-produced test kits
           are less accurate.

           Tests for which the accuracy is questionable are not
           appropriate evidence on which to base determination of a
           person's guilt or to make grave administrative judgements.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program             12




                                 HUMAN DIGNITY


           Employees are human beings deserving of dignity, respect,
           and basic human rights.  Acceptance of the DFARS clause
           raises the concern that Digital will sell our rights to the
           government.
           
                                    Privacy

           Privacy is an important aspect of human rights.  Some
           amount of privacy is a psychological need.  There is
           controversy about what substances should and should not be
           illegal and to what extent use is abuse.  But these are not
           issues to be decided within Digital and certainly not by
           the Department of Defense.  While the DFARS clause overtly
           expresses opinions about drug use, it is also a matter of
           privacy.  The DFARS clause assaults the privacy of all
           employees, whether or not they are using drugs.

           It is obvious that drug tests strip away the privacy of
           those who test positive because the person has taken an
           illegal substance.  But drug tests reveal more than use of
           illegal substances, so information about the private lives
           of law-abiding citizens is threatened.  Even if tests only
           revealed use of illegal substances, the forceful
           examination of even a person who does not use illegal
           substances is still an intrusion into their private life. 
           People simply do not want strangers interfering with them.

                                    Respect

           The DFARS clause contains a contradiction.  The DFARS
           clause requires employees in positions of trust and
           confidence to be tested.  But requiring a person to submit
           to a drug test is a clear statement that they are not
           trusted.  It is an act of disrespect.

                                   Repugnance

           The DFARS clause does not describe the physical acts it may
           require.  What is involved is at best an indignity and at
           worst humiliation.  Digital would be asking employees to
           provide a sample of their normally taboo body fluids to a
           faceless corporation for impersonal processing.  To keep
           control, some drug-testing programs involve observation of
           the act.  This humiliation more than exceeds the latitude
           that an employer should have in making requests of their
           employees, let alone requiring.  And even supervision
           without observation is repugnant.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program             13




                                  Compensation

           If a drug-testing program is implemented, this is a new
           addition to the job requirements of some employees.  But
           nothing is heard about consideration for the employees'
           reduction of freedom.  The drug-testing program represents
           a hazard to future employment, including hazard to those
           who will refuse to give up their privacy and to those who
           receive positive test results, whether falsely or
           otherwise.  If the corporation does not recognize the human
           values described above, at least recognize that additional
           job requirements and hazards correspond to some economic
           value.  Just as Digital should not let the government
           freely impose new contract clauses, employees should not
           let Digital freely impose new conditions, both for the
           disdain and inconvenience of the conditions and for the
           limitation of future conditions.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program             14




                                EMPLOYEE RIGHTS


           All employees are human, and so those who accept a
           drug-testing program should be accorded rights necessary to
           preserve justice.  These include the rights described here.

           Any person subject to a drug test should be informed of the
           reasons for the test.  Probable cause is the only normal
           grounds for such an invasion of privacy, if indeed there
           are ever grounds.  In such a case, the person should be
           informed of the evidence and testimony against them, and
           the person should have the opportunity to explain the
           evidence, confront the witnesses, and otherwise rebut the
           case.

           Some employees may agree to scheduled or random testing. 
           The use of schedules or random testing requires monitoring
           to prevent accidental or deliberate abuse which might
           unfairly target some persons or invade privacy.  The
           subjects of such tests should take part in the monitoring.

           Testing on other grounds less than probable cause, such as
           mere suspicion or a supervisor's discretion, is highly
           subject to abuse and should never be condoned.  Anonymous
           or confidential reports should not be accepted as cause.

           Whenever a sample of a person's body, wastes, or other
           personal material is taken, including urine, blood, and
           hair, the person has a right to be given portions to
           provide to testers of their own selection and to retain for
           future resolution.  Provision should be made for sealing
           such samples and transmitting them in the manner necessary
           to preserve their status as legal evidence.  Proper regard
           shall be given to alternate test results when made by
           competent testers.

           It should be recognized that errors can occur because of
           use of legal substances, natural body variations, and other
           items that would cause independent tests to falsely report
           a positive result.  Because of this, a tested person has
           the right to explain test results, to take additional
           tests, to have the tests made by the most accurate methods
           available, and to contest results.

           All test results should be kept in the strictest secrecy. 
           Test results should not be available to any party other
           than those immediately involved.  Excluded parties include
           the subject's family, physician, and insurer; Personnel
           employees; and supervisors and others in the management
           chain.  Digital should establish controls for handling
           sensitive information and make those controls known and
           verifiable to employees.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program             15




           When test results are found to be in error or unrelated to
           Digital concerns, they should be destroyed at the
           employee's request.  Employees should be informed of their
           right to have irrelevant, outdated, or erroneous records
           destroyed.

           These rights should extend to other personal information,
           such as reports of suspected substance abuse, comments by
           supervisors, and administrative actions.  Whatever
           information is collected about a person should be held
           confidential, accessible only to those with absolute need. 
           For example, a report of suspected abuse should be made
           available to no persons other than the charged person and
           the person with the duty to decide whether or not it is
           appropriate to administer a test.  It is not necessary to
           make such a report available to the employee's supervisor. 
           One consequence of failure to maintain such confidence
           would be the prejudicing of a supervisor against an
           employee based on an unsupported or malicious report.

           If any action is taken against an employee, including
           suspension, transfer, or denial of assignment, such penalty
           should be rescinded when results are properly explained,
           when shown to be erroneous or unacceptable, or when the
           problem indicated by the test results is corrected.  These
           actions and other aspects of administration of a
           drug-testing program should be subject to processes of
           review, appeal, and resolution of grievances.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program             16




                              EMPLOYEE INFORMATION


                   Information About the Drug-Testing Program

           Employees should be informed in advance that they are
           subject to a drug-testing program.  This information is
           needed to make decisions about whether or not to accept the
           intrusion into their privacy and possible consequences. 
           Information should be included about who might be tested,
           circumstances under which tests will be required or
           requested, who will determine what employees will be
           tested, how that determination will be made, and what
           choices the employee has before, during, and after the
           testing.

                         Information About Legal Rights

           Persons who are subject to a drug-testing program, whether
           or not they have yet been required or requested to submit
           to testing, should be informed of their rights under
           applicable laws.  In some jurisdictions, employees will
           have a right to refuse to take a test.  When that is the
           case, the employee should be informed of that right -- no
           person should be compelled to take a test with the mistaken
           belief that they are required to submit.  All other rights
           should be made known to the employee, such as rights to
           contest or explain results.

                          Information About the Tests

           Any person to be tested should be permitted to understand
           the nature of the tests they are to undergo.  Each such
           person should therefore be provided with a list of the
           tests to be made, including what method of testing will be
           used, what the tests detect, how accurate the tests are,
           what parties will be performing the tests or handling the
           samples, what can cause inaccuracies in the test results,
           and what challenges to the tests have been made in the past
           or exist now.  This information should be complete to the
           extent that the person can locate confirming material.  For
           example, in telling a person about the accuracy of a test,
           the person should be given information sufficient for them
           to retrieve copies of studies which established that
           accuracy.

           In particular, each person who is asked to submit to a test
           should be informed of what the tests can detect, even if
           the things that can be detected are not the purpose of
           performing the test.  That is, the subject should be made
           aware of everything that can be revealed by the test,
           including use of legal substances, pregnancy, and illness.

           This information should be provided sufficiently far in
           advance of testing for it to be given full consideration.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program             17




                  Information About Results and Administration

           To maintain the integrity of a system of information, it is
           necessary that people have access to information about
           themselves.  Any person who has been tested should be
           informed in detail of the results.  For example, if tests
           measure a concentration, that information should be
           reported in full and not reduced to a positive or negative
           report.  Data necessary to interpret such information
           should also be provided, such as typical concentrations,
           normal variations thereof, and values that would be
           abnormal.

           When any information is collected or created about a
           person, it should be made known to that person so that it
           can be checked for accuracy and relevance.  This should
           include reports of suspicion, decisions made about an
           employee, or any administrative action.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program             18




                          POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONCERNS


                         External Influences on Digital

           Turning down a contract containing an unacceptable clause
           is a loss of revenue.  But it is also an investment,
           because it strengthens Digital's negotiating stand, deters
           such clauses in the future, and protects Digital from
           growing into a situation where it is overly dependent on a
           single source of revenue.

           The government has learned some new things.  The Department
           of Defense has learned it can have its way with Digital. 
           The politicians have learned they can implement a social
           agenda through means that sidestep the normal
           Constitutional and other legal safeguards.  These will not
           be forgotten.  Drugs are out of style, at least on the
           front pages of our newspapers and the lead stories of our
           television news.  But drugs are by no means the only social
           issue, of today or tomorrow.  People with other goals now
           have a new method to use to achieve their ends.

           The Defense Department has opened the way for others. 
           Representatives will find it convenient to add an amendment
           to a bill which will add a clause to one contract or
           another.  Other government agencies will establish their
           own rules.  And Digital has already received requests from
           private companies to submit Digital employees to drug
           testing.  There is a lot of potential for pressure from
           many directions.  A strong and decisive policy is needed to
           control that pressure.

                              Checks and Balances

           Our government was designed with specific protections. 
           Different powers of the government were given to different
           branches.  The rights of citizens to due process and
           freedom from search and seizure and other rights were
           recognized by the Constitution to protect citizens from all
           branches of government.  In other words, some powers were
           given to the various branches of government but some powers
           were not given to the government at all.

           In the DFARS clause, the Department of Defense seeks to
           subject some people to intrusive searches.  There is a
           significant danger here of presuming people guilty unless
           they can prove their innocence.  Certainly it can be argued
           (not necessarily correctly) that the Department of Defense
           is acting within the law.  But due process and freedom from
           search are more than a matter of law.  These rights were
           written into the law because they are valuable.  These
           rights produce desirable results, and so we should hold on
           to them for the benefit of those results, rather than a
           legal basis.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program             19




           There are several checks and balances we are losing here. 
           The Department of Defense made this regulation.  But
           Congress is our legislative body.  We need to oppose this
           transfer of power so that we can retain control of our
           government.

           Administering tests is a search of a very private kind. 
           Privacy is valued for reasons given elsewhere, but privacy
           should also be maintained as a limit on government power. 
           We need to say to the government that it can control people
           thus far, and no farther.

           There is also risk here to the principles of due process
           and presumption of innocence.  This sidestepping of the
           normal governing procedures also sidesteps the normal
           reviews and controls of government, including court review
           to a great extent.  Proper procedures in matters of
           accusation and determination of guilt are valuable because
           they guard a system from unintentional degeneration and
           deliberate or accidental misuse.  We protect the rights of
           the innocent by protecting the rights of all, and we
           presume people to be innocent until proven guilty because
           the danger of punishing innocent people must be balanced
           with the desire to punish the guilty.

           A drug-testing program operated by a private company
           threatens these rights.  Consider also that Digital is a
           part of our society, and Digital is therefore subject to
           government control just as much and individuals are.  The
           rights that are valuable to individuals are also valuable
           to Digital.  It is in Digital's interest to seek to limit
           the government's control over our society.

                            Digital's Direct Concern

           Newspaper and television reports about drugs have
           increased.  But an increase in stories is not the same as
           an increase in problems.  Has the use or abuse of illegal
           substances posed a problem to Digital?  To what extent is
           product quality and cost affected?  These are the points
           which affect Digital directly, the points that have to do
           with the working of the company.  They are internal, and
           they are a part of the process of running the company.

           The influences we are experiencing now are external.  To
           some extent, they are unreal -- things which could be
           eliminated without affecting the company's ability to
           design, manufacture, and sell products.  When decisions are
           made about a drug-testing program, the extent to which
           drugs have really presented a problem should be considered. 
           The extent to which drugs are in the media should be
           resisted.  The actual threat to Digital represented by drug
           abuse should guide Digital's actions more than the
           external, political imposition of a repugnant contract
           clause.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program             20




           If there are real problems with drugs, these should be made
           known to people.  Flashy ads on television increase
           cynicism.  An intelligent person knows that a picture of an
           egg on a frying pan does not give them information about
           drugs, and that even if the picture were an accurate
           analogy for some drug, it could not be accurate for all
           drugs.  People also know that scientific-sounding opinions
           can be bantered back and forth endlessly.  What is needed
           is the truth.  If Digital will have a drug awareness
           program, then make people aware of actual problems which
           have caused Digital actual damage.  Show the truth and let
           it speak for itself.

                                      Law

           The ACLU newsletter also reports a person in California was
           awarded $425,000 in a suit against a company which fired
           her for refusing to submit to a drug test, and there was a
           similar award in Massachusetts.  We congratulate those
           states that enact laws to protect privacy and those courts
           that recognize and protect the right.  Digital obviously
           needs to consider these protections when designing a
           drug-testing program.
                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program




           We are concerned about a drug-testing program and ask
           Digital to consider the concerns, suggestions, and requests
           expressed in this letter.

                     Printed Name                 Signature

            1  _________________________  _________________________

            2  _________________________  _________________________

            3  _________________________  _________________________

            4  _________________________  _________________________

            5  _________________________  _________________________

            6  _________________________  _________________________

            7  _________________________  _________________________

            8  _________________________  _________________________

            9  _________________________  _________________________

           10  _________________________  _________________________

           11  _________________________  _________________________

           12  _________________________  _________________________

           13  _________________________  _________________________

           14  _________________________  _________________________

           15  _________________________  _________________________

           16  _________________________  _________________________

           17  _________________________  _________________________

           18  _________________________  _________________________

           19  _________________________  _________________________

           20  _________________________  _________________________

           21  _________________________  _________________________

           22  _________________________  _________________________

           23  _________________________  _________________________

           24  _________________________  _________________________

           25  _________________________  _________________________





         * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
          THIS MESSAGE IS FROM HARVEY WEISS, V.P., GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS
         GROUP, AND ERLINE BELTON, CORPORATE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS MANAGER.

          Managers should make further distribution as appropriate and
                 discuss its contents with affected employees.
         * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


           The Department of Defense (DoD) is now requiring a new
           clause, DFARS 252.223-7500, "Drug-Free Work Force'" be
           added to contracts involving access to classified
           information.  This clause may also be included in
           unclassified contracts where the DoD contracting officer
           determines that the clause is necessary.

           Digital Equipment Corporation is now accepting contracts
           containing this new DoD clause.  Specifically, Digital has
           accepted the inclusion of the Drug-Free Work Force clause
           on certain work orders on WR-ALC BOA #F09650-85-G-0001. 
           Employees and managers assigned to a work order from this
           contract should understand that the clause may affect each
           individual assigned and will affect their employer, Digital
           Equipment Corporation.

           The Drug-Free Work Force clause requires Digital Equipment
           Corporation to institute and maintain a program for
           achieving a drug-free work force.  Digital has begun work
           on this program which when completed is expected to
           include, among other features, an employee assistance
           program (EAP), supervisory training, provisions for
           referral and provisions for identifying illegal drug users. 
           Identifying drug users is expected to require drug testing
           on a controlled and carefully monitored basis.  It is also
           expected that Digital's work rules regarding drug use will
           be modified.

           Digital is several months away from a final position on the
           extent to which testing will be a required part of the drug
           program under the regulation.  The extent of drug testing
           to be conducted will be determined by a number of factors,
           including the nature of the work an employee performs under
           a specific contract, the resources Digital assigns to the
           drug program required by the regulation and the risks to
           public health, safety and national security that could
           result from the failure of a Digital employee to adequately
           perform on a contract covered by the clause.

           Your employees are now being assigned to or are supporting
           a contract that contains the new DoD Drug-Free Work Force
           clause.  Therefore, employees currently in these positions
           will be subject to the DoD guidelines in the clause at some
           point in the future.  It is important that Digital make
           clear to these employees some of the management
           considerations on drug testing that Digital has established
           as we begin the design of the drug program required under
           the regulation:





              o  Digital will only accept the DoD drug clause when 
                 required by the regulation.
           
              o  Before implementing testing as an integral part of a 
                 drug program, Digital senior management will 
                 carefully consider all appropriate issues and will 
                 put in place a quality program consistent with 
                 Digital's values.
         
              o  When Digital initiates drug testing as a part of its 
                 drug program required by the DoD clause, prior to the 
                 introduction of testing employees will be notified of 
                 the details of the testing and the implications of 
                 the requirement.
         
           In closing, we wish to emphasize that the contract to which
           some of your employees are being assigned does contain the
           new DoD Drug-Free Work Force clause and that this clause
           has the potential to subject certain positions to drug
           testing.  When this possibility becomes a reality, affected
           employees will be notified prior to initiation of testing. 
           We will also keep all employees informed in personnel
           bulletins as the development of the drug program required
           by the DoD clause proceeds.

           Should your employees have any further questions on the new
           DoD Drug-Free Work Force clause we encourage them to
           discuss with their respective manager or contact Fred
           Beckette, FSG Human Resources Manager, DTN 297-4818.

           Harvey





                        Drug-Free Work Force (Sep 1988)

           (a) Definitions.  "Illegal drugs," as used in this clause,
           means controlled substances included in Schedule I and II,
           as defined by section 802(6) of Title 21 of the United
           States Code, the possession of which is unlawful under
           Chapter 13 of that Title.  The term "illegal drugs" does
           not mean the use of a controlled substance pursuant to a
           valid prescription or other uses authorized by law.

           "Employee in a sensitive position," as used in this clause,
           means an employee who has been granted access to classified
           information; or employees in other positions that the
           contractor determines involve national security, health or
           safety, or functions other than the foregoing requiring a
           high degree of trust and confidence.

           (b) The Contractor agrees to institute and maintain a
           program for achieving the objective of a drug-free work
           force.  While this clause defines criteria for such a
           program, Contractors are encouraged to implement
           alternative approaches comparable to the criteria in
           paragraph (c) below that are designed to achieve the
           objectives of this clause.

           (c) Contractor programs shall include the following, or
           appropriate alternatives:

              (1) Employee assistance programs emphasizing high
              level direction, education, counseling,
              rehabilitation, and coordination with available
              community resources;

              (2) Supervisory training to assist in identifying and
              addressing illegal drug use by Contractor employees;

              (3) Provision for self-referrals as well as
              supervisory referrals to treatment with maximum
              respect for individual confidentiality consistent
              with safety and security issues;

              (4) Provision for identifying illegal drug users,
              including testing on a controlled and carefully
              monitored basis.  Employee drug testing programs
              shall be established taking account of the following:

                 (i) The Contractor shall establish a program
                 that provides for testing for the use of
                 illegal drugs by employees in sensitive
                 positions.  The extent of and criteria for such
                 testing shall be determined by the Contractor
                 based on considerations that include the nature
                 of the work being performed under the contract,
                 the employee's duties, the efficient use of
                 Contractor resources, and the risks to public
                 health, safety, national security [sic] that
                 could result from the failure of an employee
                 adequately to discharge his or her position.





                 (ii) In addition, the Contractor may establish
                 a program for employee drug testing --

                    (A) When there is reasonable suspicion
                    that an employee uses illegal drugs; or

                    (B) When an employee has been involved in
                    an accident or unsafe practice;

                    (C) As part of or as a follow-up to
                    counseling or rehabilitation for illegal
                    drug use;

                    (D) As part of a voluntary employee drug
                    testing program.

                 (iii) The Contractor may establish a program to
                 test applicants for employment for illegal drug
                 use.

                 (iv) For the purpose of administering this
                 clause, testing for illegal drugs may be
                 limited to those substances for which testing
                 is prescribed by section 2.1 of Subpart B of
                 the "Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace
                 Drug Testing Programs," (53 FR 11980 (April 11,
                 1988)), issued by the Department of Health and
                 Human Services.

           (d) Contractors shall adopt appropriate personnel
           procedures to deal with employees who are found to be using
           drugs illegally.  Contracts shall not allow any employee to
           remain on duty or perform in a sensitive position who is
           found to use illegal drugs until such time as the
           contractor, in accordance with procedures established by
           the contractor, determines that the employee may perform in
           such a position.

           (e) The provisions of this clause pertaining to drug
           testing programs shall not apply to the extent they are
           inconsistent with state or local law, or with an existing
           collective bargaining agreement; provided that with respect
           to the latter, the Contractor agrees that those issues that
           are in conflict will be a subject of negotiation at the
           next collective bargaining session.

                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program




           We are concerned about a drug-testing program and ask
           Digital to consider the concerns, suggestions, and requests
           expressed in this letter.

                     Printed Name                 Signature

            1  _________________________  _________________________

            2  _________________________  _________________________

            3  _________________________  _________________________

            4  _________________________  _________________________

            5  _________________________  _________________________

            6  _________________________  _________________________

            7  _________________________  _________________________

            8  _________________________  _________________________

            9  _________________________  _________________________

           10  _________________________  _________________________

           11  _________________________  _________________________

           12  _________________________  _________________________

           13  _________________________  _________________________

           14  _________________________  _________________________

           15  _________________________  _________________________

           16  _________________________  _________________________

           17  _________________________  _________________________

           18  _________________________  _________________________

           19  _________________________  _________________________

           20  _________________________  _________________________

           21  _________________________  _________________________

           22  _________________________  _________________________

           23  _________________________  _________________________

           24  _________________________  _________________________

           25  _________________________  _________________________

    A note of clarification:  The "Note to Coordinators" isn't to
    pre-arranged people; it is to anybody who is interested in having a
    copy of the letter available for people to read and sign.
    
    If you would like to take on that job, I would appreciate it.
    Everything is go at this point; I've got a copy of the letter in my
    office for anybody in ZK who wishes to read and sign it, and I'm just
    waiting the four weeks to let signatures come in. 
    
    
    				-- edp 

    
    I've got a copy of the letter and signature page in my office
    in PK02 if anyone wishes to sign it.
    
    Donna
    PK02 Room 8

    Just today Digital received from one of our defense contractor
    Corporate Accounts a P.O. mandating a "drug screening" program.  It is
    the first time that particular account has included such a paragraph in
    a purchase order.  Since substance abuse is covered in the DBA between
    Digital and that customer, it isn't an issue till the next DBA
    negotiations come up.  This time we will refuse the P.O. and return it
    to the customer to be changed to simply refer to the appropriate
    section in the DBA.  But I fully expect the drug screening program to
    become an issue in the next DBA negotiations.
    
    I have a feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg...
    
    							Pat

Yes, just the tip of the iceberg.

So far we've accepted the clause on a contract directly from DoD.  Soon we'll
be asked to accept the clause on defense contracts from General Electric,
DuPont, Union Carbide, Raytheon, TRW, General Motors, Lockheed, McDonnell
Douglas, Boeing, ...

    The purchase order I was talking about was from a company that makes a
    large portion of its money on defense contracts, but the division that
    issued this particular purchase order has nothing to do with defense
    contracts.  It's simply a manufacturing division.  That's partly
    why it scared me so much; it has no connection of any kind with
    the DoD.
    
    However, John, your point is well taken:  every defense contractor in
    the world is going to jump on the bandwagon and start putting drug
    testing clauses into their contracts.  Digital has been faced with this
    before several years ago (from, I might add, one of our very largest
    customers) and we steadfastly refused to accept the contract.  The
    customer backed down and we got our contract without the clause. Every
    dime of it.  I was involved on the periphery of that deal, and have
    never been prouder of my company than I was then.  I can't help
    wondering if we'll do the same thing now... 
    
    							Pat

    Current sites with the letter available for signing:  ZKO, DSG, SHR,
    and PKO.  Are there any I don't know of yet?
    
                                      
    				-- edp 

         First to the Supreme Court which today issued its first
    decisions on drug testing in the workplace.  In two landmark
    rulings, the Court gave the Government wide laditude to test
    for drug and alcohol abuse among workers who  are  entrusted
    with law enforcement and public safety responsibilities.  

         NPR   legal   affairs   correspondent  Nina  Tottenberg
    reports:  Today's Supreme Court rulings  involved  two  drug
    testing  programs.   One  program  requires drug and alcohol
    tests for any railroad worker involved  in  an  accident  or
    safety violation.  The other requires drug tests for Customs
    workers recommended for promotions.  In both  cases  workers
    argued  that the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches
    and seizures bars any search of their bodies unless there is
    some individualized suspicion of wrong doing.  

         But today the Supreme Court disagreed.  Until today the
    only time the Supreme Court had ever upheld a bodily  search
    separate from an arrest without any individualized suspicion
    was in the case of a prison inmate.  Today that all  changed
    as  the Court began laying down the guidelines for when drug
    and alcohol testing on the  job  is  permissible.   In  both
    cases the Court declared that the usual Constitutional Rules
    requiring some individualized suspicion before  there  is  a
    search  must  be balanced against the need for public safety
    and the integrity  of  law  enforcement.   In  the  railroad
    worker's  case the court declared that blanket testing could
    be required after accidents and safety violations because of
    the  need to preserve public safety and because the railroad
    industry is highly regulated and that its workers thus  have
    a  diminished expectation of privacy.  The vote in the rail-
    road worker's case was seven to  two  and  the  outcome  was
    widely expected.  

         But  the  outcome  in  the Custom worker's case was not
    widely anticipated and the vote was five to four.  The first
    difference  in  the  two  cases  was  that  while  there was
    evidence of considerable drug and aclcohol abuse among rail-
    road  workers,  there was virtually none among Customs work-
    ers.  Government  officials  said  that  railroad  accidents
    linked to drug or alcohol abuse were responsible for some 42
    deaths over a ten year period.  In contrast the head of  the
    Customs  Service,  admitted  his  agency had no problem with
    drug abuse.  When the Customs Service tested 3600 of its em-
    ployees up for promotion, only five persons tested positive. 

         A  second difference in the two cases is that the rail-
    road workers were tested after an accident or safety  viola-
    tion, while all Customs workers up for promotion were tested
    if they were involved with drug interdition or if they  wore
    firearms  or  dealt  with  "sensitive information".  Justice
    Kenney in his majority opinion said that "in balancing  Cus-
    toms  employee's  right  to privacy against the Government's
    interest in fighting the war on  drugs,  the  fight  against
    drugs  must  prevail".  "The Government has a compelling in-
    terest in assuring that front  line  interdiction  personnel
    are  physically  fit  and  have  unimpeachable integrity and
    judgement", he said.  In further language that seems to give
    Government  broad authority to require drug testing, Justice
    Kennedy also said "it is reasonable to require drug and  al-
    cohol  tests  for anyone who wears a firearm, or who has ac-
    cess to classified  or  truly  sensitive  information.   The
    Court, however, sent the sensitive information question back
    to the lower courts for further development in  the  Customs
    worker  case because those who were deemed to have access to
    sensitive information included animal caretakers and accoun-
    tants, for example.  

         Just  how  this issue develops could determine the out-
    come of many other drug testing programs for Government  em-
    ployees.    For  example,  would  an  employee  who  handles
    anti-trust or trade information or secret commodity informa-
    tion  be  deemed to have access to sensitive information and
    thus be subject to mandatory urine testing?   That  question
    awaits  resolution  on  another  day.  So too does President
    Reagan's order for  random  drug  testing  through  out  the
    Government.   But  today's  Supreme  Court  ruling gives the
    first clear signal on drug testing and for now  that  signal
    is a green light.  

         Attorney  General  Dick  Thornberg  hailed  the Supreme
    Court's decision as a common sense approach.  He noted  that
    while  the  Court's  opinion does not affect drug testing by
    private employers, the ruling will send the private sector a
    message, too.  "Responsible employers will share our commit-
    ment to providing a drug free workplace and will be hardened
    in  their  resolution  to  initiate responsible drug testing
    programs, by the Court's finding today".  

         Lawrence  Segal is co-ordinator for the ACLU Task Force
    on Drug Testing.  "The fact that  for  the  first  time  the
    Supreme Court is saying that you don't need the tiniest iota
    of individualized suspicion in order to conduct an  invasive
    body  search of somebody, in the context of the workplace is
    very alarming." 

         Scolei  (spelling?),  the only Reagan appointee to dis-
    sent, said that since  there  was  no  evidence  of  a  drug
    problem  in  the  Customs  Service, the drug testing program
    there amounted to "a kind of immolation of privacy and human
    dignity in symbolic opposition to drug use".  

        (This is not directed at .255, but is an attempt to keep
        this discussion on track.)
        
        Please, let's remember that the purpose of this conference
        is to discuss Digital and working here.  If you want to
        continue talking about drug testing at Digital, that's
        fine.  If you want to talk about drugs or drug testing
        in general, there are other conferences that are more suited
        for that type of discussion.
        
        Thank you.
        
Jim Stratton (not acting as a moderator, but as an interested Noter
        who'd simply like to see this topic stay on track)
        

Since .256 didn't speak as moderator ...

I found .255 germane, informative, and relevant ... it wasn't a discussion
of anything, just some factual information about a supreme court decision
which has bearing on Digital.  Albeit the bearing is one of direction rather
than immediate effect, but it seems appropriate to the subject.

I do agree with your plea to stay on the subject; just disagree that
.255 was straying.

- greg,	who hasn't commented on this topic because I am unable to
	resolve a strong preference for privacy with the clear and
	immediate problem of drugs.

RE: .256
    
    I strongly disagree with your assessment.  I believe that drug testing
    in general is _very closely_ tied to the drug testing at Digital. As it
    has been pointed out before, the external pressure is the sole reason
    behind the drug testing at Digital.  Expecting participants of this
    conference to ignore the reality is not acceptable.
    
    If your reply was not directed as .255, then I see no reason for
    a pre-emptive strike.  If you believe that the discussion has been
    or had been side-tracked, please point it out.  We appreciate your
    concern for keeping the discussion on the track and I am sure all
    of us are doing our best not to derail it.
    
- Vikas

My .257 is a mistake ... I misread that .256 was directed at .255
when, in fact, the opposite was true.  Regrets for the noise.

- g

Re: .255

    I too believe the Supreme Court decision has a direct bearing on
    Digital.  And I am upset enough that I have taken several actions
    today:
    
    I've extracted the letter and signature page, plan to print it this
    evening, and will be the coordinator for the Dallas, Texas office.  For
    any Texas employees who want to sign, I'm in the DLO building, 8th
    floor, in the Corporate Accounts area.  If I'm not here the stuff will
    be among the piles of junk on my desk.  Feel free to dig for it.  (^:} 
    
    Tonight I'm writing my senators and congressman.
    
    And I just did something I never thought I'd do.  Conservative
    Republican, apolitical animal that I am, I called the ACLU to ask what
    else I can do to help fight this blatant erosion of our basic
    freedoms.  I don't have the time, but I don't believe I can afford
    *not* to get involved.
    
    I was already worried by the DoD contract requirement, but the Supreme
    Court decision yesterday has absolutely convinced me that this is
    by far the worst case in my lifetime of the denial of our basic
    rights as American citizens.  Employers like Digital and like the
    U.S. Government are being used as the vehicle for taking those basic
    rights away from us.  I might not win, but I *must* try
    to help stop it.
    
    							Pat

    This is obviously a hugely relevant topic for all affected employees.
    
    Question: is this a big enough issue to need its own notes conference?
    I can see this not going into many, many replies over time.
    
    Andy

    Re: .255
    
    I'm profoundly disappointed to see your country exchange morality
    for expediency -- particularly considering the initial raison d'etre
    was to escape from and guarantee against such an occurence.
    
    I would trust that ALL elected representatives, from the President
    on down (or is that 'on up') who are, as we all know, party to
    sensitive information, will show up for testing tomorrow morning.
    I would expect, in order to maintain independance, that the testing
    be done by a private firm paid not for the number of tests performed
    but rather for the number of positive results -- incentive to reveal.
    
    As to the relevance to Digital, this 'guilty-until-proven-innocent'
    trend in your society will surely modify my ambition to work in
    Vermont.
    
    My condolences.
    

A lot of us probably agree with .-1, however, all but the last paragraph of
the previous reply belongs in the "Mandatory Drug Testing" topic in SOAPBOX.

By the first of next week I want to see all nine Supreme Court justices
and Atty Gen. Thornberg lined up outside a Washington DC testing center with
plastic cups in their hands.  They have clearly demonstrated by their
power and authority that they have sufficiently sensitive positions that we,
the people of the United States, must have clear confidence that their work
is not impaired by illegal drug involvement.

How does that relate to the Digital way of working?

If we sign a contract that requires drug testing of employees on the project,
the first person in line with his plastic cup should be the DEC VP who
signed the contract, the people from the sales staff who worked to get it,
their superioirs (to make sure that they were not working under the
direction of an impaired person), and everybody between them and the lowest
people in the chain affected.  And superiors' results should be made available
to their subordinates to inspire confidence in their leadership.

- tom powers]

PS: Scalia can show up late for the tests if he wants, God bless his soul.

    I talked  about  drug  testing  to  an acquaintance  that works for a
    company that is  mainly a Dod vendor, and he was surprised that I was
    concerned  about  it.   To them, it  is  considered  normal  business
    practice and a requirement when you joint that company.
    
    Isn't it all where you are coming from?
    
    Octavio

Re: .266

That's what I worried about: if drug testing is business as usual then
lie detectors will be business as usual and wire taps will be business as
usual.  Might as well tear up the Constitution.

Will it affect my life at Digital if that happens here?  You bet!

BTW, I'm not sure if anyone else at DSG is getting signatures for the
petition; I've checked with my personnel rep about the legalities of when
and where and how I can solicit signatures, and she says she'll get back
to me tomorrow.  I should have remembered: it's easier to ask for forgiveness
than to ask for permission!  (I wonder how easy it is to ask for forgiveness
after you've asked for permission and been turned down...?)

				-- Bob

 From 716.266:

>                            To them, it  is  considered  normal  business
>    practice and a requirement when you joint that company.
					 ^^^^^    

Beautiful, that.
Stephen

    Re: .254 by BEING::POSTPISCHIL
    
    I have the letter at MRO4-3, pole J15.  Well, actually the office
    across the aisle from pole J15.
    
    	Stapes

    Current sites are:
    
    	ZKO, DSG, SHR, PKO, OGO, SPO, DLO, and MRO
    
    Send mail if you'd like to know where the letter is in your site.
    
    
    				-- edp

I heard back from my personnel rep, and she says the rule is that we can't
pass out petititons during work hours.  If anyone in DSG would like to see
a hardcopy of the letter or endorse the letter with your signature, see me
at DSG1-2 Pole D8 between 12 and 1 p.m. or after 5 p.m.

				-- Bob

        With the assistance of Richard Seltzer, editor of MGMT MEMO,
        I've obtained the two articles included here, which relate
        to this issue.  The information they contain is timely.
        
        Tom
        

        
DIGITAL GRAPPLES WITH DRUG ISSUE

In the U.S., changes in federal laws and regulations as well as 
changes in the expectations of customers and society in general 
are forcing companies to rethink their policies related to 
substance abuse.

Digital in the U. S., through its Employee Assistance Program 
(EAP), makes various resources available to employees who may 
have a drug or alcohol problem.  Digital also has policies that 
cover situations when employees have performance problems or 
violate the company's expectations of appropriate conduct.  
Managers are expected to focus on employee performance.

In addition, Digital has policies that deal with employee conduct 
at Digital and customer work sites.  The company expects 
employees will conduct themselves in a safe and healthy way.  
Employees who violate workplace rules are subject to discipline, 
up to and including termination.  Also, the use, possession of or 
distribution of illegal substances on Digital property or on a 
customer site could be cause for termination from the company.  
And, in the U.S., employees are not permitted to use or possess 
alcohol on company or customer permises.

In other words, in the U.S., Digital's practice and policy 
regarding substance abuse has been:  
        
o  No illegal drugs are allowed on Digital property or at 
   customer sites (U.S. Personnel Policies and Procedures 6.24).
o  If substance abuse is suspected of contributing to a 
   performance problem, managers should focus on the performance 
   issue (U.S. PP&P 6.21).
o  Employees who voluntarily seek help for chemical dependency 
   problems are given confidential help through EAP.
o  In the event that an employee appears to be incapacitated, 
   managers are to work with local Digital Health Services or 
   occupational health resources to seek a safe and confidential 
   solution.  Upon return to work, the employee is required to 
   provide an explanation and medical documentation (U.S. PP&P 
   4.35)
        
These policies are intended to maintain a drug-free, productive 
workplace, which is important for business.  

"Our approach emphasizes self responsibility," notes Erline 
Belton, manager, Corporate Employee Relations.  "Digital believes 
employees should be responsible for their own behavior outside of 
as well as within the workplace.  Individual responsibility and 
trust are basic values of the company.  Digital generally does 
not attempt to oversee what employees do on their own time."  

However, U.S. government requirements and other outside 
influences are now pressuring the company to commmit to 
instituting different programs to ensure a drug-free workplace.  
Many such requested programs include drug testing of Digital 
employees.

In the U.S., state and federal laws and regulations, and the 
courts' interpretations of them, are in conflict.  Legal 
protections for individual rights clash with requirements 
intended to protect public safety and reduce demand for and 
traffic in illegal drugs.  

The provisions of some state laws and state constitutions give 
individuals the right of privacy to varying degrees and may give 
people with substance abuse problems the same sort of protection 
as people with other kinds of handicaps.  But the federal 
government, (and the Departments of Defense and Transportation, 
in particular) insists that under certain circumstances drug 
testing is necessary for the public welfare -- for instance, to 
ensure that pilots and truck drivers or people with access to 
classified information are not under the influence of drugs.  

"At this point, it is impossible to predict how far federal 
requirements will extend into the private sector," notes Paul 
Henrion, staff attorney, Personnel Law Group.  "We also cannot 
predict whether, in the various legal challenges to these laws 
and regulations, the courts will rule on the side of individual 
rights, or will decide that public safety is an overriding 
concern."

Right now, Digital is wrestling with these issues, trying to 
develop policies and practices that remain consistent with the 
company's basic values and yet meet these complex legal 
requirements.

The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, which is scheduled to become 
effective on March 18, 1989, requires that federal contractors 
certify to the contracting agency that they will provide a 
"drug-free workplace."  Some requirements of the law are:
        
o  publish a drug policy statement notifying employees that the 
   unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession 
   or use of a controlled substance in the workplace is 
   prohibited and explaining the consequences of violation;
o  establish a "drug-free awareness program" to inform employees 
   of dangers of drug use and available treatment programs;
   
In addition, the Department of Defense (DoD) now requires that a 
"Drug-Free Work Force" clause be added to contracts involving 
access to classified information.  This clause also may be 
included in unclassified contracts where the DoD contracting 
officer determines this is necessary.  The clause requires the 
contractor to institute and maintain a program that should 
include:  supervisory training, provisions for referral, an 
employee assistance program, personnel procedures for dealing 
with users of illegal drugs, and provisions for identifying 
illegal drug users.  It is expected that DoD will require drug 
testing on a controlled and carefully monitored basis.

This clause does not apply to contracts for commercial products 
unless there is access to classified information, but it does 
apply to all applicable contracts for commercial services.  
"Digital is working directly and through industry associations to 
have all commerical products and services excluded," says Cyndi 
Bloom, manager, U.S. Field Employee Relations.  "But it now looks 
probable that some Digital employees, who work on contracts that 
require them to have government security clearances, may have to 
undergo some form of drug testing."  The extent of this testing 
will be determined by a number of factors, including the nature 
of the work the employee performs under a specific contract, and 
the public health, safety or national security risk that could 
result from inadequate performance.

Similar Department of Transportation regulations, which apply to 
pilots and interstate truckers, are scheduled to go into effect 
in December 1989. 

This complex legal situation is still in flux.  

In addition to U.S. government laws and regulations, Digital has 
to respond to similar pressures from a variety of major 
commercial customers, including several Corporate Accounts, who 
are getting very selective about who they will allow on their 
premises to do work for them.  Some such customers have asked us 
to do drug testing of Field Service and Software Service 
employees to ensure that they are "drug-free."   So far, we have, 
through negotiation, been able to remove such stipulations from 
commercial service contracts, because of our existing policies 
and practices and our clear commitment to ensure that customers 
get the best possible service.  

Another kind of pressure comes from communities where Digital 
does business. For instance, in Greenville, S.C., and Colorado 
Springs, Colo., nearly all the major companies in the area now do 
do drug testing.  "In other words, we're not just dealing with 
changes in federal law and regulat ions, but rather with a 
pervasive change in public attitude," observes Cyndi.  

"Drug abuse has been elevated to the position of a major public 
problem, and there is a growing expectation that large companies 
should help in the overall effort to deal with it," adds Erline.  
"This issue will be with us for years to come.  

"As a company, we are coming to grips with the fact that we are 
now so large that we are a microcosm of society, with all of the 
problems of society at large.  Also, as one of the world's major 
corporations, we are highly visible and subject to public as well 
as government pressure.  As we reformulate our policies to 
respond to these new conditions, we have to find ways to sustain 
our basic values." 

In this case, the crossroads in decision-making is the point 
where Digital must either change its policies or turn down 
important government business.  Digital is now trying to 
determine what changes we must make and how to implement them 
fairly and sensitively.  All anticipated changes will be 
communicated to employees through Personnel Perspectives, MGMT 
MEMO, LIVE WIRE and local newsletters as quickly as possible.  In 
addition, in Q4, Digital plans to distribute a Field training 
package to Field Personnel and then to Field managers.  Later, a 
Field information package is planned for employees who deal with 
customers.



MANAGING CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY
by Bruce Davidson, manager, Corporate Employee Assistance Program 

Dealing with an employee who has a performance problem that may 
be complicated by personal problems is one of the most difficult 
challenges a manager can face.  For example, the illness of 
chemical dependency -- addiction to drugs or alcohol -- can show 
up at the workplace in the form of performance problems including 
absenteeism and tardiness.  It can lead to waste, safety hazards, 
poor decision-making or disrupted employee morale.  

We encourage managers and supervisors not to try to diagnose the 
cause of performance problems and not to make assumptions about 
people.  Rather than guess at drug- or alcohol-related causes, 
they need to focus on the performance, and deal with it through 
normal problem-solving and corrective-action procedures.  This 
should be coupled with an offer of assistance.

Today, an estimated 10-15% of the U.S. population at large is 
dependent on alcohol or drugs or both.  A far greater number of 
people are affected indirectly because of their closeness and 
interactions with the substance abuser or chemically dependent 
person.

When we come to work, we all bring with us attitudes and 
personality styles that relate to our families of origin and our 
current family situation.  Sometimes people who have grown up in 
chemically dependent families, for example adult children of 
alcoholics, bring to their work group and to their environment 
some of the same styles they experienced growing up, including 
dramatic mood swings or difficulty in finishing tasks or setting 
limits or overachievement. 

People affected by substance abuse need help for themselves as 
well as help in intervening in their situation.  

Substance abuse is a worldwide problem that, because of differing 
cultural norms, each geography in Digital deals with in its own 
way.  In the U.S. and Canada, Employee Assistance Programs (EAP) 
serve as a confidential resource for Digital employees, their 
families, and retirees, and provide assistance for a wide range 
of problems, including legal and financial concerns, family 
problems, aging parents and emotional distress, as well as 
chemical dependency.  

We make EAP resources available across the U.S. and Canada, but 
it is up to the employee to use them.  Also, managers can and do 
contact their EAP consultant directly to discuss their concerns 
and their approach regarding an employee before making a 
referral.  Managers should suggest that employees consider 
contacting the EAP when a change in work pattern or a performance 
issue arises.  But, under current policy, the employee's use of 
the program is always a matter of choice, not a requirement.  

EAP's role is to to help employees evaulate whether a personal 
problem or issue is contributing to a performance problem.  The 
employee has the opportunity to speak openly and confidentially 
with experienced professional counsellors who will offer support 
and understanding and give professional guidance.  In cases that 
are identified as chemical dependency problems, we can 
successfully treat the illness, which will ultimately resolve the 
performance problem.

There is a real opportunity to help people recover.  From a 
business point of view, we're recovering valued "human assets" -- 
people with training and experience, who can perform well.  

Most of these people do follow through on a a program of 
recovery.  About 65-75% of the people who undergo treatment are 
abstinent at one year after treatment.  In about 70-80% of 
Digital cases, the performance improvement is sustained during 18 
months of followup.

Managers should keep in mind that chemical dependency is often a 
progressive illness.  The problem typically develops over a long 
period of time. Some people are "in training" in their late 20s 
and 30s and only become dependent on a chemical as they hit their 
late 30s and early 40s.  Others using drugs like cocaine show 
signs of dependnency in their 20s and 30s.  Also, emotional 
crises, which are a normal part of life, may contribute to a per-
son's progression toward chemical dependency.  

People often begin to abuse drugs or alcohol unknowingly, using 
them to be sociable, to unwind, to reduce stress, to sleep, to 
wake up, to lose weight, to be part of the crowd, or because of 
peer pressure.  Many people self-medicate, using alcohol and 
other drugs, including over-the-counter drugs, as a way to avoid 
physical pain or feelings of anxiety, worry, tenseness, 
hopelessness, grief or anger.  

We have been bombarded with the notion that the way to deal with 
stress and pain of any type is to take a chemical.  We have 
become the "extra strength" generation.  One or two pills used to 
be enough to deal with a headache.  Not anymore.  It's bigger 
capsules, bigger pills, and more of them.  The implication is 
that if you take a little bit more, you'll feel a little bit 
better.  If one dose reduces the pain, two doses or drinks may be 
even better.

Another class of drugs -- amphetamines, "uppers," and cocaine -- 
poses a particularly difficult problem for managers.  In the 
early stages, the person using these drugs may make major 
contributions at work.  These drugs make people feel and act very 
powerful, with an enormous amount of energy.   For instance, many 
cocaine users, in the early stages of use, will act as leaders, 
exhibit relentless energy, and be creative and insightful.

Managers should be aware of their employees' normal behavior 
patterns and notice sudden changes.  Some people work 50+ hours a 
week and have done that for years.  It's part of their normal 
life style.  But when someone's performance radically changes, 
when the average performer suddenly becomes a superstar, putting 
enormous energy into the job, the manager should be aware of 
possible disaster.  It is not likely that anyone can sustain that 
kind of pace forever, and on the other side of that emotional 
high is a deep low.  Managers love to see 130% contributions, 
and, at first, may not notice the low days between the ups; in so 
doing, they could fail to recognize that a crisis may be in the 
making.

Managers should also be alert to instances when people who showed 
signs of great potential become stagnant and blase.  These 
employees may never have any serious performance problems, but 
they never develop into the contributors you expected they would.  
In some cases, these people are chemically dependent or are 
victims of chemical dependency, or have other personal 
difficulties and are treading water at work while they try to 
cope with problems at home.  

In all such cases, the manager's role is to manage performance, 
seek input from consultants, and, if appropriate, encourage the 
employee to seek assistance.

 

    re: .272
    
    Those articles sound similar to the article that appeared in a recent
    issue of U.S. Field News or whatever the thing is called.
    
    Getting to the nitty-gritty, it seems to be saying that drug testing
    will be a reality, that it is becoming the "in thing" for large
    companies to do to appear to be doing their part to help fight the
    drug war.
    
    Bob

    Just added this conference to my note directory.  I havn't even
    read one note in this conference but I endorsed the letter composed
    by Eric Postpischil.

    I'm new to Digital (approx 4 months) and I think this is the only place
    to be if your a software tech.  My opinion may change because of the
    issues discussed in this topic.
    
    I applaud Mr. Postpischil's standards, integrity, and concern for the
    wellbeing of Digital's employees. I would like to get involved, and 
    do anything I can to help rebuke the DOD DFARS clause.  My vaxmail
    address is vaxwrk::hajinlian.  

    
    	   Here in HSO, I was not allowed to post the "petition", so
    	I opted for posting the letter portion only.  So far as I know,
    	it has not yet been removed from the bulletin board in the 
    	copy room on the ninth floor.
    
    	   If nothing else, I hope to raise the consciousness of those
    	around me to the issues.  Eric has done an excellent job of
    	this with his letter.
    
    	   Thanks, Eric.
    
    	- Greg

Re: .-1

The rules seem to be so vague that it's not surprising that they'd be
interpreted differently from site to site.  For example, someone told me today
that soliciting signatures for a petition is a terminatable offense!  All
I can say is: if DEC is really that repressive, do I want to be working here?
Perhaps there's a difference between the official rules and the unofficial
ones.  For now, anyway, I'm going by what my personnel rep told me.

Gee, I only started on this stuff yesterday and already I'm learning things...

				-- Bob

        The policy is not so specific that it's not open to some local
        interpretation.  For example, does Eric's letter constitute
        "literature" for the purposes of the policy?  Does posting
        a copy on a bulletin board, or on the wall outside your office,
        constitute "distributing" or "soliciting"?  Clearly, it open
        to some interpretation.  If you suspect you're going to make
        waves, discuss your planned action with your manager and make
        sure your manager will support you.
        
        Tom
        
                      PERSONNEL                       Section 6.19       
                                                      Page  1 of 1       
               POLICIES AND PROCEDURES                Effective 17-MAY-82

                 Solicitations and Distribution of Literature

It is Digital's policy that all employees are not to solicit other
employees for any purpose during working time.  Working time does
not include break time or meal time.  Digital employees are not
permitted to distribute literature of any kind and at any time in
working areas.

Persons who are not employees of the Company are prohibited from
distributing literature of any kind or soliciting employees for any
purpose at any time on Company property.

    Re .277:
    
>                      PERSONNEL                       Section 6.19       
>                                                      Page  1 of 1       
>               POLICIES AND PROCEDURES                Effective 17-MAY-82
>
>...	Digital employees are not
>permitted to distribute literature of any kind and at any time in
>working areas.

    Oh my God!  Do this man that I am going to be fired for distrubting
    the new VMS Doc. to the people in my unit?!?  We are going to have
    to terminate everyone in SDC too!  And what about all of those
    engineers who are handing out Specs, Proposals and Phase 0 statements
    all of the time?  Boy, ZKO is going to be a ghost town when we get 
    done with them!
    
- Barry

    While neither of these quotes were directed at the subject of drug
    testing, they do say something about the likeliehood of DEC trying
    to convince the government that drug testing is not a great idea.
    
         
         "It's a good rule of thumb, it's my rule of thumb, the
         government always does the wrong thing.  This is not being
         cynical, the message is it's not worth getting upset,
         you know the rules ahead of time."
         
      			- Ken Olsen, Worcester Gazette 17-MAR-1989
         
         "Trying to change the government to [make it] help us
         is like trying to change the speed of light: It's worth
         a certain amount of effort but not an awful lot."
         
         		- Ken Olsen, Boston Globe 21-MAR-1989
        
    
    Also in the news is a report that 30 White House employees have
    filed suit to prevent their employer from subjecting them to random
    drug testing.  It's said that George is upset that they are taking
    this action.

    Re: back a few
    
    I guess that I am lucky.  My manager was the third person to sign.
    I was first, and a fellow across the aisle was second.  The biggest
    problem that I have run into is the number of people unwilling to
    read it because of its length. (heavy sigh)
    
    	Stapes

    At one site, some people are signing a different version which is
    mostly the summary page with a few introductory sentences taken from
    elsewhere. 
    
    People who do not want to sign the longer statement might wish to sign
    this.  I am placing a copy in the next response.  When you send me the
    signature pages at the end, be sure to keep them identified.
    
    
    				-- edp

                         DIGITAL'S DRUG-TESTING PROGRAM
           
              
                   A Letter to Digital Equipment Corporation

           On October 31, 1988, the Department of Defense started
           requiring a new clause in Defense contracts.  This clause
           establishes requirements for a drug-free work force and
           includes provisions for a drug-testing program.

           Digital has agreed to the clause.

           Opposition to drug testing comes from different motivations
           in different people.  Some people want to exercise their
           own values.  Some people just want to be let alone.  And
           some people find this exercise of power unreasonable. 
           There are two key points here.  A person does not need to
           be a drug user or a drug abuser to object to drug testing. 
           And the common abhorrence of drug testing is an indication
           of the extent to which it is an intrusion.

           Privacy is invaded by drug testing because it reveals
           personal information.  Dignity is assaulted because testing
           is humiliating.  Respect is eliminated because testing
           shows a lack of trust.

           The disadvantages of drug testing must be examined and made
           known.  Digital risks lawsuits, loss of valuable employees,
           decreased morale, excessive dependence on Defense
           contracts, and reduction of future negotiating power with
           the government and other parties.  There are dangers that
           bodily fluids and drug tests can be misused, including
           false interpretation, personal motives, and testing for
           more than drugs.  The risk that this first step will lead
           eventually to mandatory testing for all employees must be
           evaluated.
           
           The actual threat to Digital represented by drug abuse
           should guide Digital's actions more than the external,
           political imposition of a repugnant contract clause.  Our
           relationship with external parties should be to provide
           quality products and services.  Drug testing is not a good
           role for Digital to have, and employee rights and dignity
           should not be sold to customers.

           If Digital implements a drug-testing program, we ask that
           safeguards be considered such as assigning only volunteers 
	   to assignments requiring drug testing.  But we would prefer 
	   the better choice, that Digital reject drug testing.


                         Digital's Drug-Testing Program




           We are concerned about a drug-testing program and ask
           Digital to consider the concerns, suggestions, and requests
           expressed in this letter.

                     Printed Name                 Signature

            1  _________________________  _________________________

            2  _________________________  _________________________

            3  _________________________  _________________________

            4  _________________________  _________________________

            5  _________________________  _________________________

            6  _________________________  _________________________

            7  _________________________  _________________________

            8  _________________________  _________________________

            9  _________________________  _________________________

           10  _________________________  _________________________

           11  _________________________  _________________________

           12  _________________________  _________________________

           13  _________________________  _________________________

           14  _________________________  _________________________

           15  _________________________  _________________________

           16  _________________________  _________________________

           17  _________________________  _________________________

           18  _________________________  _________________________

           19  _________________________  _________________________

           20  _________________________  _________________________

           21  _________________________  _________________________

           22  _________________________  _________________________

           23  _________________________  _________________________

           24  _________________________  _________________________

           25  _________________________  _________________________

From 716.14:
    
>>  If I was told that it was take the test or be fired
>>  I would voluntarily go somewhere have a test taken and have it
>>  timestamped. If I was then fired I'd make as much hay as possible
>>  over the harassment of an innocent individual. Of course my test
>>  would have been negative.
>>  
>>  I would hope that many others would have the courage to follow such
>>  a course.
    
>>  I find it absolutely unacceptable that an individual's privacy and
>>  personal rights can be violated in such a way. The time to stand
>>  up and be counted is now.
 
    Great Idea!  I'm planning on doing the same. And besides, before anyone
    takes any of my bodily fluids they can at least talk dirty to me first.
    

    Could drug testing be regarded as preventative maintenance for a
    resource (see note 769)?
    
    Another indication of cultural change?
    
    David

    Reminder:  It is time to send me the signatures.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Four sites still have signatures on their way to me, but I have over
    100 signatures already, including a few that weren't know to me before.
    
    
    				-- edp 

 
      I was drug tested on 5 out of 10 second interviews for engineering
    positions I had before graduating from Duke in '87.  
    
    Here is how it typically went :                        
    
    I had to agree to submit to drug testing before the second interview
    would be arranged.  If I had refused that day, I could not have
    any interviews and would be flown back. (I saw this happen once)
    1/4 to 1/2 the day of the interview was spent waiting for my turn.
    This was usually done in the morning, and we were given lots of
    coffee and hot chocolate while waiting to help nature along. 
    
    When my turn finally arrived, I was given a cup and a woman followed
    me into the bathroom.  The bathroom typically had only one tiolet
    so there were no stalls for privacy.  The woman watched *all* my
    actions very closly.  When I asked if she would turn around, she
    replied it was necessary to see everything because I could hide
    an eyedropper full of HCL and use it to wipe out drug traces in
    my specimen.  Giving a urine specimen while wearing a business suit,
    hose, slip, etc... and having someone closely watching was never
    a trivial feat.
    
    After the specimen was given, I was required to sign the label that
    sealed my specimen bottle.  I then watched as the bottle was placed
    in the bag to be shipped to the lab, and was required to sign the
    label that sealed that bag.
    
    Giving a urine specimen was one of the most degrading things I've
    ever had to do in my life.  I would think hard before doing it again.
    First we are drug tested, then we are disarmed, and soon we could
    have our reproductive freedom severely limited...What is America
    coming to?
    
    							nancy b. 

Re: .287

Shocking.  I wouldn't even work for a company that required tests like that
for its new hires (let alone for people being *interviewed*).

My only question is: why did you submit to the tests?  When they told me
that they required a drug test or I'd be flown home I'd have answered "Thank
you, I now have all the information I need to make my decision about whether to
work here.  The interview process is concluded."

Of course, it's easy for me to say that now that I have 5 years experience
working for DEC.  It's harder when you're first starting out.  That's why
*everyone* has a moral obligation to refuse to work for a company that requires
this kind of testing.

				-- Bob

> Shocking.  I wouldn't even work for a company that required tests like that
> for its new hires (let alone for people being *interviewed*).
    
    What EXACTLY is the policy of Digital, regarding new hires as of
    today?
    
    - Vikas

    
    re .289
    
    Well, testing all depends if you will be working directly on U.S. 
    Government contracts that require security clearance or not.
    
    Whether it be new external or internal hires.
    
    /prc

    To take .289 a step further:
    
    Exactly what is the status of drug testing in Digital today?  And
    what is the status of the DoD's testing requirements?
    
    Have we tested anyone?  Have we notified anyone they will be tested?
    
    Has the DoD required us or any other corporation to test employees, or
    have they just stated in the contract that they *will* require it? 
    
    							Just curious,
    							Pat

    
    re .291
    
    See .290.
    
    It's only required for those employees who work on government contracts
    which require security clearances.
    
    /prc

  >> It's only required for those employees who work on government contracts
  >> which require security clearances. 

    I realize that.  But has anyone in Digital been tested, or notified by
    management personally that they will be tested? 

        An earlier note in this topic was a contribution from the unit
        manager for the work that brought this issue to a head.  Seek
        it out and ask whether anyone in his unit has yet been tested.
        I'd suggest asking by MAIL, with a request that the reply go
        here as well.
        
        Tom

    
    I do hope that drug testing is mandatory in the Black Powder factory
    that supplied powder to the USS IOWA.
    
    
    	Rick
    	Merrill

If what I heard was accurate, the powder dates back to World War II. (Black
powder is very stable, so its age is not ordinarily an issue.)

So there's no guarantee that the factory in question is even in business...

    
    Bob Messenger (.288) - 
    
    Why did I submit to the drug test?
    
    At the beginning of the recruiting season, a seminar for graduating
    engineers was given.  It was stated that drug urinalysis would be
    the rule instead of the exception among companies involved with 
    government contracts.  I did not think the test could be as
    dehumanizing as it actually was, and was worried about limiting
    my opportunities in my first position out of college.  
    
    In retrospect, I should not have "submitted".  
    I received 9 job offers.  
    I received 5 insults to my person.
    
    							nancy b.

    
    
    Hah!  After all this talk about whether one should consent to being
    drug-tested or not, I find that I have to be drug-tested.  Yes, Uncle
    Sam does it again.  As part of one's application for a Green Card
    (sponsored by Digital Equipment Corp, so it *is* sort-of related to
     this notes file) one has to undergo a comprehensive medical
    examination, including some unspecified drug-testing and an HIV test.
    As well as checking for any signs of sexual perversion (I'll let you
    know exactly what THAT means after the event).
    
    I guess they've got me over a barrel on this one.  I consent to
    the invasion or I don't stay.               
    

    re: 716.298---Before you decide to stay, read 716.287 and think about
    how you would feel under those circumstances.  I salute Nancy for
    relating her experience: that's never happened to me, but I'm not sure
    I'd have the courage to describe it in such detail, and so widely, if
    it did.
        John Sauter

    Porter (.298) - 
                                                                
    I remember some enterprising minds in my class began advertising
    "clean urine" for sale soon after the initial recruiting seminar
    at the beginning of senior year.  
    
    I am sorry you have to compromise your person in order to work at
    Digital.  Have you checked opportunities with other high-tech
    companies that don't require drug-testing?  Front page story of
    4/20/89 EDN is titled "Silicon Valley in Midst of Hiring Binge".
    
    							nancy b.

Re: .300

That wouldn't help him, since California is part of the United States...

				-- Bob

    Yup, in case I wasn't clear -- the "tests" are required by
    the US Immigration Service, or whatever their real name is, not
    by DEC.
    
    In the true spirit of capitalism, I even have to pay to be degraded!
    (actually, DEC will pick up the tab as part of the relocation deal, but
     Uncle Sam doesn't know that).

        what they really need is drug testing as a requirement for
        welfare...
        
        Now that would have a noticable effect...
        
        q
        

Re: .303

What they really need is drug testing as a requirement for elective office.

Now that would have a noticeable effect...

				-- Bob

        This is drifting away from the topic of "Drug testing at Digital?"
        and from any relationship to "The way we work at Digital".
        
        Perhaps we could re-focus on Digital, and not on the welfare
        system or elective office.
        
        Tom

    re .306 (at the risk of heading further into the rathole)
    
    Having been through the immigration process, my guess is that some
    document wth a name like 'Optional Form 193' has the following
    questions:
    
    Have you ever been convicted of any crime involving sexual perversion?
    
    Have you ever been involved in, but not convicted of, any activity
    involving sexual perversion?
    
    Good ol' OF-176 had the same two questions about 'use of or trafficking
    in illegal drugs'.
    
    gary
    
    

    What would I know about sexual perversion?  I'm a good, clean-living 
    boy from England.  We don't do stuff like that there, you know.
    
    Seriously (sort of) -- all I know is I have to have a medical exam,
    and there's a standard form that the doctor needs to complete, which
    testifies that there are no signs of any of a big list of things
    which the doctor has to check, and one of the things is sexual
    deviation (I lied before, it says "deviation", not "perversion").

>    What would I know about sexual perversion?  I'm a good, clean-living 
>    boy from England.  We don't do stuff like that there, you know.
    
 
Ahhhh heh heh heh heh hee.....! :-)

Thanks for the laff, Dave...

Andy

    An earlier reply (in the .90s) said that it was necessary to P in
    a bottle to get a clearance from DIS. Well, I have been cleared
    to TS by DIS for the last 4 years and so far, haven't had to put
    any samples in bottles yet... However, one company that I sent a
    resume to recently stated that they test all new hires - P first,
    then, if you pass, interview. 
    
    Next week our group is having a 3 hour meeting, in which the drug
    testing topic will be discussed, along with other subjects. If there
    is any new info on drug testing, I will post it here. 
    
    The only time I ever had to P in a bottle was while I was in the
    Army in 1972.  They also supplied oceans of beer, soda and coffee in
    order to make sure that "bladder lock" wasn't a problem. Those who
    failed the test were given a re-test. Those that failed round two
    were sent to a two week "detox" clinic. The worst part of it was
    having to fill the little bottle while the First Sergeant had his
    beady little eyes fixed on my xxxx. 
                                        
                                  

	I was in the Air Force at about the same time, and was part of several
"random" testing samples over a few years.  It seemed the same group of us were
being "randomly" selected each time, and we all knew we were clean!  And we 
weren't "observed", oddly enough, but that may have been because we were 
officers.

re .310

Before anyone asks,

	DIS is not Digital Information Systems,

	but Defense Investigative Services.

/john

                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     10-May-1989 02:01pm EDT
                                        From:     VMSMail User KOCH
                                                  KOCH@VALUES@MRGATE
                                        Dept:      
                                        Tel No:    

TO:  @DOM_STAFF


Subject: FYI - Illegal/Controlled Substance Policy

From:	FACMTS::FACMTS::MRGATE::"BARTLE::A1::DOHERTY.JOHN"  5-MAY-1989 15:09
To:	@Distribution_List
Subj:	ILLEGAL/CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE POLICY

From:	NAME: JOHN N. DOHERTY @CFO          
	FUNC: CORPORATE PERSONNEL     
	TEL: 251-1318             <DOHERTY.JOHN AT A1 at BARTLE at CFO>

To:	See Below



Attached you will find a copy of the approved U.S. policy on Illegal/Controlled 
Substances.  There is also a memo that will probably be condensed and issued 
with the policy when it goes out on LIVE WIRE in a few days.  

We have a requirement to publish this policy to our employees as soon as 
possible. In order to give the Personnel Organization a couple of days advanced 
reading of the policy, I am sending this to you, electronically, and ask that 
you distribute it to your Personnel Staffs as soon as possible.   

As you will read in the policy there is very little that is new to Digital and 
much of the wording in the policy is to satisfy Federal regulations.  The 
potential for drug testing is included in this policy and is not meant to imply 
that Digital is about to implement a wide-spread drug testing program.  The 
intention is that we will implement such programs only when required.  

Finalization of the government regulations and interpretations of those 
regulations are still going on and because of that we have not got answers to a 
number of the questions that people might ask.  We do have several committees 
put together to review issues associated with such regulations and will inform 
you as to their progress and any changes we may need to make in the policy.

ATTACHMENTS (2) 

U.S. POLICY

                         ILLEGAL/CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES


PHILOSOPHY

IT IS THE GOAL OF DIGITAL TO MAINTAIN A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND PRODUCTIVE WORK 
ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL EMPLOYEES.  WE EXPECT EMPLOYEES TO SHARE THIS GOAL.

WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING OUR EMPLOYEES AND ASSETS OF THE 
CORPORATION AND THOSE OF OUR CUSTOMERS, AND FOR OBEYING THE LAWS OF THE 
COUNTRIES AND STATES IN WHICH WE DO BUSINESS.  DIGITAL DOES NOT CONDONE ANY 
UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY.

THE COMPANY HAS FOUND THAT EMPLOYEES WHO WORK UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF 
ILLEGAL/CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES MAY PROVE TO BE HARMFUL TO THEMSELVES, OTHER 
EMPLOYEES, CUSTOMERS, OR THE COMPANY.  THEREFORE, THE COMPANY REQUIRES THAT 
ITS EMPLOYEE WILL NOT WORK UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF, POSSESS, SELL, 
DISTRIBUTE, DISPENSE, MANUFACTURE, OR USE ILLEGAL/CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES IN 
THE WORKPLACE.

DIGITAL HAS POLICIES THAT COVER SITUATIONS WHEN EMPLOYEES HAVE PERFORMANCE 
PROBLEMS OR WHEN EMPLOYEES POSSESS OR USE ILLEGAL/ CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES IN 
THE WORKPLACE.  EMPLOYEES WHO VIOLATE WORKPLACE RULES ARE SUBJECT TO 
DISCIPLINE, UP TO AND INCLUDING TERMINATION.

TO HELP RESOLVE PROBLEMS WHICH MAY ARISE FROM SUBSTANCE USE, ABUSE AND 
DEPENDENCY, THE COMPANY WILL PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO EMPLOYEES VOLUNTARILY 
SEEKING HELP FOR THEIR PROBLEMS AS DEFINED IN ESTABLISHED COMPANY PROGRAMS.

DIGITAL TRUSTS ITS EMPLOYEES AND RESPECTS THEIR DIGNITY. HOWEVER, THERE MAY 
BE TIMES WHEN LEGAL OR BUSINESS NEEDS REQUIRE THE COMPANY TO INSTITUTE DRUG 
TESTING OR OTHER PROCEDURES.  IN THOSE CASES, SUCH PROCEDURES WILL BE 
CONDUCTED WITH APPROPRIATE SENSITIVITY TO EMPLOYEES.

POLICY

DIGITAL PROHIBITS THE UNLAWFUL MANUFACTURE, SALE, DISTRIBUTION, 
DISPENSATION, POSSESSION, WORKING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF, OR USE OF 
ILLEGAL/CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES BY OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE WORKPLACE OR DURING 
WORK.  "WORKPLACE" IS DEFINED AS BEING DIGITAL PROPERTY, A COMPANY VEHICLE, 
A CUSTOMER SITE, OR A VENDOR SITE.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS POLICY 
COMPANY-SPONSORED EMPLOYEE FUNCTIONS OR ACTIVITIES OCCUR "DURING WORK."

EMPLOYEES FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THIS POLICY ARE IN VIOLATION OF 
PERSONNEL POLICY, SECTION 6.24 EMPLOYEE CONDUCT AND ARE SUBJECT TO 
DISCIPLINE UP TO AND INCLUDING TERMINATION.

                                                                  5/03/89
U.S. POLICY


PRACTICE


EMPLOYEES MAY SEEK OR BE REFERRED FOR VOLUNTARY ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO 
ADDRESS PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH SUBSTANCE USE, ABUSE OR DEPENDENCY.  
DIGITAL PROVIDES AN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (EAP) FOR ALL EMPLOYEES 
ACROSS THE UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE SUCH REFERRALS. 

MANAGERS WHO SUSPECT SUBSTANCE ABUSE OUTSIDE THE WORK ENVIRONMENT SHOULD 
LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THEIR DIRECT MANAGEMENT TO UNACCEPTABLE WORKPLACE 
BEHAVIORS AND PERFORMANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PERSONNEL POLICIES, UNLESS 
OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW OR LEGAL OBLIGATION.  SUCH LAWS OR LEGAL 
OBLIGATIONS MAY REQUIRE THAT AN EMPLOYEE BE REMOVED FROM A PARTICULAR 
POSITION.  MANAGERS SHOULD WORK WITH PERSONNEL AND EAP TO ADVISE THE 
EMPLOYEE OF ASSISTANCE OPTIONS.   ON QUESTIONS REGARDING LAW OR LEGAL 
OBLIGATIONS, PERSONNEL SHOULD CONSULT WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT.

FROM TIME TO TIME, DIGITAL MAY BE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT PROGRAMS FOR 
IDENTIFYING ILLEGAL DRUG USE, INCLUDING DRUG TESTING.  ALL PROGRAMS MUST BE 
APPROVED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 

IN IMPLEMENTING THIS POLICY, MANAGERS MUST BE SENSITIVE TO EMPLOYEE 
CONCERNS AND AWARE OF THE POTENTIAL LIABILITY OF ISSUES INVOLVING 
ALLEGATIONS OF ILLEGAL CONDUCT OR DISCUSSIONS OF EMPLOYEE MEDICAL 
SITUATIONS.  PERSONNEL POLICY 6.18, EMPLOYEE PRIVACY, IS A KEY REFERENCE IN 
THIS REGARD.
                                                                  
                                                                  5/03/89

                           QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS


In order to comply with multiple Federal Regulations, Digital Equipment 
Corporation is required to publish an Illegal/Controlled Substance policy 
for our employees.  This is part of a program which will also include 
information on EAP, supervisory training, and in some specified cases, 
procedures for identifying drug users.  The laws and regulations concerning 
the subject are still in the process of being developed by the Government 
and are undergoing review and comment by Digital.  

According to Erline Belton, Corporate Employee Relations Manager, many 
aspects of the program have not been determined and therefore we do not 
have all the answers.  We will be staying close to developments in the 
Government and in the States to understand Digital's responsibility around 
such laws.  Digital has always had a concern for the privacy of our 
employees and values the importance of trust in our work environment.  
However we also understand the issues involved with the illegal/controlled 
substances and have experienced some of the problems ourselves in this 
area.  We will keep employees informed of developments through a variety of 
communication processes within Digital as the Government goes further to 
clarify their requirements which will ultimately impact Digital and our 
employees.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Question:  Is Digital about to implement a Company-wide Drug Testing 
           Policy?

Answer:    No, Digital has no plans to implement a Company-wide drug 
           testing program.  Our intention is to limit drug testing if 
           required only to the areas required by law or legal 
           contract.

Question:  As an employee in a group where drug testing is required, 
           will I have choice of whether or not I decide to take a 
           drug test?

Answer:    The requirements for drug testing have not been developed 
           as of yet, so we do not know what the law might state.  We 
           are very sensitive to the need of employee choice in issues 
           such these and will take that into consideration as we 
           develop Company policies.

Question:  What kind of drug test would be performed if required?

Answer:    Our medical staff is now looking into the types of test 
           that are now available for illegal/controlled substances.  
           There are many factors to look at, reliability, cost, 
           availability, etc.

Question:  As an employee, is EAP a resource to me if I have a problem 
           with substance use?

Answer:    Yes, EAP is available for referral to programs to help with 
           substance problems.


Question:  If I take a required test and test is positive, what action 
           will the Company take?

Answer:    The requirements and policies have not been determined yet.  
           As mentioned above, EAP will be available to employees in 
           the U.S.  We will expect our employees to be responsible 
           and seek help to address their problems.

Question:  How confidential are the results of the test?

Answer:    All medical reports are kept confidential.


These are some of the questions we believe you might have as an employee. 
There clearly may be others.  We encourage you to ask questions and share 
your comments with us.  

If you have any other questions, please call me.




Distribution List:

re: .313

> HOWEVER, THERE MAY BE TIMES WHEN LEGAL OR business needs REQUIRE THE COMPANY
> TO INSTITUTE DRUG TESTING OR OTHER PROCEDURES.

This sentence seems to leave the door wide open for drug testing of employees
for any reason.  I would have expected Digital to ONLY drug test when REQUIRED
by law.

Bob

re: .314

Bob, 

  I think the "business needs" clause is there to allow Digital to enter
into contracts with Gov't Agencies that require drug testing.  This
requirement is policy, not law, and therefore, Digital would not be
required "by law" to enforce drug testing, but would be required by
"business needs."

  I agree, however, that this wording opens the door for abuse of 
the policy.

                Bob

        RE: .313 -- Thanks for posting that.  I expect the text of
        the policy will show up in the ORANGEBOOK infobase in due time,
        but the "Q&A" section won't be there, and it's illuminating.
        
        RE: .314, .315 -- Consider the complete context for the phrase:

DIGITAL TRUSTS ITS EMPLOYEES AND RESPECTS THEIR DIGNITY. HOWEVER, THERE MAY 
BE TIMES WHEN LEGAL OR BUSINESS NEEDS REQUIRE THE COMPANY TO INSTITUTE DRUG 
TESTING OR OTHER PROCEDURES.  IN THOSE CASES, SUCH PROCEDURES WILL BE 
CONDUCTED WITH APPROPRIATE SENSITIVITY TO EMPLOYEES.

        Further, consider (from PRACTICE) that:
        
FROM TIME TO TIME, DIGITAL MAY BE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT PROGRAMS FOR 
IDENTIFYING ILLEGAL DRUG USE, INCLUDING DRUG TESTING.  ALL PROGRAMS MUST BE 
APPROVED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 
        
        While there is some potential for abuse, given that any testing
        program must be approved by the Executive Committee, I doubt
        that a slip-shod testing program would ever be put into place,
        or that it would be done capriciously.  
        
        There is a good article on "The Role of the Executive Committee
        in Decision-Making at Digital" in the April-May 1989 issue
        of MGMT MEMO (Vol. 8, #3).  I'll ask Richard Seltzer for a
        copy and post it here (probably as a separate reply).
        
        Tom

re: .316

I guess I'm concerned about the "foot in the door" syndrome.  Now that we have
given in to the demands of a large customer, what's to keep another large
customer from saying something along the lines of, "We do pre-employment drug
testing of all of our employees.  We want you to test all the people that
will be working at our site.  Since you do defense related work, you must
have accepted the drug testing clause in the government contracts, and we
expect that you will the same for us." (Veiled threat) "There are lots of 3rd
party maintenance companies out here that would just love to get our
maintenance contract...".

This will be one way to find out who our IMPORTANT customers are.  They are
the ones we will do drug testing for.

Bob_who_hopes_he_is_just_being_paranoid

I have typed in the following article (without permission of course) that
appeared in this morning's Dallas Morning News.  The corporation, Texas
Instruments, happens to be my account.  They have a culture that is
extremely similar to ours in many ways.  They are also in the same business
we are in (the semiconductor and computer divisions at least).  Perhaps
this note is unrelated to drug testing at Digital, but I can't help
believing it might be useful to know what other, similar, companies are
doing and saying on the issue. 

I am going to cross-post the note in SOAPBOX.

							Pat

===============================================================================
		New TI drugs policy includes random tests

Texas Instruments Inc. -- the Dallas area's largest employer -- announced 
Wednesday a new, strengthened substance abuse policy that will include 
random drug testing of employees in all its U.S. operations.

"The elimination of substance abuse in our workforce is consistent with 
TI's desired culture and will enhance the safety, security, and 
productivity of all TI employees," Jerry R. Junkins, chief executive 
officer, said in a prepared statement.

The program -- which applies to all the company's 34,600 Dallas-area 
employees -- includes rehabilitation assistance and education.

Drug testing is becoming more widespread among major U.S. corporations, 
studies show.  but pre-employment screening -- which TI has done since 1986 
-- is the most common procedure.

Random testing is used less and is more controversial, especially outside 
hazardous industries.  But as the federal government has begun to mandate 
drug-free workplace policies in the Defense Department, Transportation 
Department, and other agencies, the testing is becoming more common in the 
private sector.

"The DOD (Department of Defense) regulations do specify random testing for 
anyone with access to what is referred to as sensitive information," said 
Max Lasater, TI vice president and director of U.S. employee relations.

TI considered limiting testing to just those operations -- but rejected the 
idea, Mr. Lasater said.  "This was an issue relative to total TI," he said.

The tests will be administered at all levels -- including senior managers 
-- from a random list generated by computer program, company officials 
said.  An employee must take the test the same day he or she is notified.

The tests won't be witnessed, protecting employee privacy, Mr. Lasater 
said.  If a first test is positive, a second, more exact test will be done 
to confirm results.

Employees who test positive the first time will have a chance for treatment 
and counseling.  A second positive test will get the employee fired.

The new drug policy was a "carefully thought-out, well-researched, deeply 
examined process," said corporate spokesman Stan Victor.

TI conducted opinion-gathering focus groups among employees as part of the 
process, he said.

"We had several focus groups where the subject of random testing was 
discussed.  If it was going to be an issue, employees preferred random and 
fairly pervasive (testing) as opposed to it being a small percentage of 
employees," Mr. Victor said.

The company will begin testing senior managers in November and all U.S. 
employees Jan. 1.

A 1988 Gallup poll found that 29 percent of large U.S. companies use drug 
testing in some form, while 26 percent planned to implement programs.

According to the Conference Board, a New York-based business research 
organization, most workplace testing is still largely limited to 
pre-employment screening.

The U.S. Supreme Court in March upheld drug-testing policies in the 
railroad industry and the U.S. Customs Service, but it has yet to hear 
challenges to random-testing plans such as the one proposed by the 
Transportation Department.

Private employers have far more latitude to test than the government, which 
is governed by Fourth Amendment restrictions against unreasonable search.

In the past, officials representing labor groups and others have opposed 
the testing.

"Our position is that it's (drug testing) an invasion of privacy, 
especially without probably cause or reasonable suspicion," Richard Avena, 
executive director of the Texas Civil Liberties Union, said in March.

In announcing its policy, TI said drug users are four more times as likely 
to be involved in work-related accidents and file 500 percent more worker's 
compensation claims than non-users.

Drug abuse "is a problem we feel is national," said Mr. Lasater.

Random testing may be controversial because it is fairly unusual in the 
workplace, he said.

"We are aware of the controversy, but we feel strongly that it suits our 
culture, and it's the right thing to do -- not just for TI but for society 
at large," Mr. Lasater said.
    

Re: .318

>If a first test is positive, a second, more exact test will be done 
>to confirm results.
>
>Employees who test positive the first time will have a chance for treatment 
>and counseling.  A second positive test will get the employee fired.

This doesn't make sense.  If the first test is positive, it could be a false
positive or the employee could be using drugs.  Therefore, a second, more
exact test will be done to confirm results.  So far, so good.  A second
positive test will get the employee fired.  Sounds logical.  But if the
first test is positive and the second test is negative, doesn't that mean
that the first test was most probably a false positive?  Why should employees
who test positive the first time "have a chance" for treatment and counseling?
Either they've been using drugs, in which case they should be fired according
to the policy, or else they haven't been, in which case they are in no more
need of treatment and counseling than anyone else.

Oh well, one more company I will never work for...

				-- Bob

re: .319 (Bob)

I think the reporter did a lousy job with his/her "first"s and "second"s.

I'm sure the policy is that if you test positive on BOTH tests for the
FIRST time, you get rehabilitated (sic).  And if you test positive on 
BOTH tests for the SECOND time, you get fired.

Bob

    The "firsts" and "seconds" issue jumped out at me too.  I suspect
    the reporter got it wrong, just from knowing TI.  They aren't the
    sort of company (I don't think) that would implement what the reporter
    described.  I'll be curious to find out.
    
    							Pat

Pat,

I read the article this morning too.  The scariest part was at the very end
where it was stated that they thought the policy was good for TI AND THE
NATION AT WHOLE.

Now, this may have been the reporter getting things screwed up again, but
I interpreted that to mean that TI felt everyone in the nation should be tested.

I can't wait for one of the TI executives to get caught in a false positive.

Bob

  > I can't wait for one of the TI executives to get caught in a false
  > positive. 
    
    If it happens, you and I will never hear about it.  Of that, I am
    sure...
    
    							Pat

    Firing people for using drugs is like shooting people for being
    sick.  Privacy has nothing to do with whether someone actually watches
    you fill the specimen jar.
    
    If someone is addicted to a drug (and I include alcohol and nicotine
    equally here) then they need help, not punishment.  There is no
    logic to the policy of testing and persecution.  It's right-wing
    reactionary discrimination.
    
    Mandatory drug testing of any kind is an invasion of privacy.

    re: 318 & later
    
    I had to go back and reread .318 to see what all the noise was about.
    I thought it was clear but I guess I can see how others may have
    read it differently.  It is amazing how people can read things out
    of context.  If they would just 'step back' and look at the whole
    message I think it would be clear.  
    
    I run into the same phenomenon almost daily with service people who 
    refuse/can't look at the whole computer system that they are trying 
    to fix.                                                         
    
    Obviously I look at things differently than a lot of other people,
    and thank goodness we are all different!
    
    Irving

    re: .324
    
    >Firing people for using drugs is like shooting people for being
    >sick.  Privacy has nothing to do with whether someone actually watches
    >you fill the specimen jar.
    >
    >If someone is addicted to a drug (and I include alcohol and nicotine
    >equally here) then they need help, not punishment.  There is no
    >logic to the policy of testing and persecution.  It's right-wing
    >reactionary discrimination.
    >
    >Mandatory drug testing of any kind is an invasion of privacy.
    
    
    	Wow...I'd heard that there are some people who actually believe in
    	determinism to the point where there is no such thing as
    	individual responsibilty, but I had thought they had all been
    	shipped off to Bezerkly, etc.
    
    	Tell me, do you believe that I am responsible for this reply or am
    	I just the victim of random neuron-firing patterns and need help?
    
    	BTW, I am NOT for drug testing.  But the classification of
    	substance abuse as a mental problem by the psychobabblers and their
    	vast legions of believers is doing more to turn us into a
    	society of Orwellian eggplants than just about anything else.
    
    	Paul

    Substance abuse is a medical problem, whether it's narcotics, alcohol
    or nicotine.   Drug testing programs target the legal rather than
    the medical nature of the problem.  Like I said, it's emotional,
    reactionary in tenor.  Just like your reply.
    
    
    >	... or am
    >	I just the victim of random neuron-firing patterns and need help?

    In most cases, no.  But, if you like, I'll take it under advisement.
    I don't think name calling is professional or appropriate.  My attitude
    is not 'determinism', I simply care more about solving the medical
    problem than supporting the witch hunt of drug testing.
    
    I don't smoke, but I used to.  Smokers should be given help to quit,
    not fired.  Same with alcoholics and other drug addicts.  This idea
    is not that complicated or subversive -- you're welcome to disagree
    but see if you can come up with a rebuttal based on logic instead
    of hormones.
    
    tim
    

    	Having traces of an abusable substance in my blood does not mean
    	that I am addicted to it.  Someone addicted to a substance DOES
    	need help (and testing positively may be the first step in helping
    	them determine if they are addicted), but an ABUSER (as opposed
    	to an ADDICT) will also be found through testing.

    	Testing positively under either circumstance will benefit the
    	person.  The addict can get help.  The abuser will be warned.
    	A second positive test before firing seems fair.

    	Living one's life under the (even occasional) influence of certain
    	substances risks the well being of not only oneself, but those
    	around him.  I would support random testing at DEC.  I have 
    	nothing to hide.  Just my opinion.  Now, if they made me pay
    	for the cost of the test they want me to take...

    	Joe Oppelt

    I still have trouble seeing how firing a person who tests positive
    for a drug has helped them.  It's only the abuse of illegal drugs
    that gets them fired, so even though they may abuse a much more
    dangerous drug than cocaine, i.e. nicotine, they won't stand to
    lose their livelihood for it.  So where is the turning point between
    the 'abuser' and the 'addict', and why should we draw that distinction
    for drug testing purposes?
    
    Nicotine is a drug, and more people die annually by it than by cocaine.
    Should smokers be fired if they don't quit?  Why not?  The long
    term costs to the company of smoking are much higher than those
    of narcotics -- I expect narcotics addicts just don't live long
    enough to be as much of a burden.  But popular emotion is on the
    other side of that argument -- it's not consistent.
    
    BTW, there was an article in the paper here locally the other day
    showing annual fatalities for nicotine, alcohol and narcotics. 
    If I recall, Nicotine deaths outnumbered narcotics by nearly 100 to 1.
    It seems to me that the argument for drug testing is based solely
    on emotion, because when you look at it outside the veil of popular
    emotion, it just doesn't make sense.
    
    

    
    re .329
    
    Your arguement makes alot of sense. I agree.
    
    /prc

Re: .329

Companies are concerned about substance-abusers and what effects/mistakes/
accidents they may cause while on the job, not whether they will die on the
job or not.

Lee

>Companies are concerned about substance-abusers and what effects/mistakes/
>accidents they may cause while on the job, not whether they will die on the
>job or not.

	  If that's the case then random testing makes no sense.
	Testing those who exhibit degradation in their on-the-job
	performance might perhaps be justifiable, but random drug
	testing on that basis makes no more sense than random
	analysis of an employee's personal relationships. After all,
	it's not uncommon for an employee's work to suffer when he
	or she goes through a problem in a personal relationship.

	Roy

    There is no doubt that drugs do impair judgement, and increase the
    instances of accidents.  Companies should be concerned about that.
    But companies are typically more concerned about controlling costs,
    and the costs of the impact of substance abuse (including alcohol
    and nicotine) are much more than the costs of accidents.
    
    I mean, realistically, the majority of us won't hurt anybody else
    by an accident at work, but our health will definitely be effected
    if we abuse nicotine/alcohol/cocaine, or whatever.
    
    I'm in favor of controlling substance abuse, of all kinds.  I think
    it's important to reduce the impact on healthcare costs and to reduce
    the accident rates as well.  I'm opposed to forcing people to take
    a test for only the unpopular drugs, under penalty of dismissal,
    and then, if they are already unfortunate enough to have a problem
    with one of the unpopular drugs, fire them, have them arrested,
    brand them as social outcasts and denegrate their moral character,
    as if we are any better.  And we haven't even breached the subject
    of probable cause.
    
    It isn't fair.  Just because it's popular to think so, doesn't make
    it right.  People become intimidated into silence, even when they
    disagree, afraid of becoming branded a social leper by the
    'I have nothing to hide' attitude of the self-righteous defenders
    of popular fad.  Nonsense.  Even Joe McCarthy had something to hide.
    
    I think the whole idea stinks, especially when it is portrayed as being
    in the best interest of the victim.    
    

RE: < Note 716.328 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "You don't notice absence of pain" >
          -< I would also WANT to know if I've been exposed to AIDS >-

  > A second positive test before firing seems fair. 
    
    What if both tests are false positives?  Is getting fired still
    fair?

  > I would support random testing at DEC.  I have nothing to hide. 
    
    Well, you may not but I do.  No, I don't use illegal drugs.  I don't
    even drink alcohol very much.  But it is none of Digital's business
    what prescription drugs I take, or whether I might be pregnant at
    any given time.  Those are things I'd definitely like to hide from
    Digital, and random testing does away with my ability to hide them.
    
  > Now, if they made me pay for the cost of the test they want me to
  > take... 
    
    I'd gladly pay for the cost of the test.  I'd gladly go to my private
    physician, have a blood test, and ask him to report back to Digital.
    The report would consist of one word:  either yes or no.  After all,
    that's really enough isn't it?  Am I or am I not taking illegal drugs?
    Yes or no?  Anything beyond that is (IMHO) clearly none of my
    employer's business and is a terrible, totally unwarranted invasion of
    my privacy. 
    
    							Pat

    re .334

>  > A second positive test before firing seems fair. 
>    
>    What if both tests are false positives?  Is getting fired still
>    fair?

    	This is so unlikely to happen that it is not even worth considering.
    	A false positive can be disproved, and I am sure that any company 
    	as honorable as DEC would give the employee every opportunity to 
    	exonerate himself.  Besides, getting fired for a false positive, 
    	once it is proven to be false, can set you up for a lawsuit that 
    	will ultimately provide you with a tidy early retirement!  :^)

    	Joe Oppelt

I haven't read all of the previous replies, but ..............

1. It is not my business what the people who work for me inhale, drink, smoke, 
shoot unless:

	a. They violate corporate policy or criminal laws by posessing, using,
	   selling at work, or conducting themselves in a manner injurious to 
	   the health and well being of others or company property.

	b. Their performance becomes unacceptable for reasons directly or 
	   indirectly related to substance abuse.

In the first case, the employee should be dealt with according to law or policy.
In the second case, the corrective action process should be used to make the
employee responsible for his/her behavior.  The manager should do what ever they
can to explain the options that the employee has in seeking help for the 
problem.  Systematic testing has no place at DEC or anywhere else unless the 
safety or security of others is directly threatened.

2.  I like poppy seed bagels and use poppy seeds in other cooking.  I recently
read about a career military person with a unblemished record who suffered
all kinds of personal and career trauma because he was accused of being a
heroin user because of eating poppy seeds and then flunking a drug test.

re: .3270

>Substance abuse is a medical problem, whether it's narcotics, alcohol
>or nicotine.   

You are confusing symptoms with causes...else child abuse and assault would
be medical problems.

> Drug testing programs target the legal rather than
>    the medical nature of the problem.
>  Like I said, it's emotional,
>   reactionary in tenor.  Just like your reply.
    

The accuracy of the latter statement aside, drug testing programs are concerned
with employee PERFORMANCE, not legalities nor medical issues.

>    My attitude
>    is not 'determinism', I simply care more about solving the medical
>    problem than supporting the witch hunt of drug testing.
    
You may wish to consult with local liscencing boards before practicing medicine.
Fortunately (for you at least :) ), you are free to pursue your intrusive, er..
represive, er.. condescending, er.. authoritarian, er.. philanthropic (whew!)
social programs.   Oh, and you may wish to consider all the fun implications
of your attitude concerning individual responsibility (or the lack thereof).


   >I don't smoke, but I used to.  Smokers should be given help to quit,
   > not fired.  Same with alcoholics and other drug addicts. 

	Fine...go ahead and help them.  Just restrict the set of people you
	are including in your "should" to yourself.

   > This idea
   > is not that complicated or subversive -- you're welcome to disagree
   > but see if you can come up with a rebuttal based on logic instead
   > of hormones.
   
Oh Most Holy Moderator, I appologize for my unprofessional, emotional reply.
Alas, my hormones are responsible and therefore I am unaccountable for my
noting behavior. 

Paul   (off to the NAP {Noting Assistance Program} for some help) 

    There is a small distinction between drugs, alcohol and nicotine.
    
    If you are going to talk about the number of deaths - let's clear
    up some facts:
    
    	substance	effect on self		effect on others
    
    	drugs		death			death - driving,
    						 results of poor work,
    						 violence to buy
    
    	alcohol		death			death - driving,
    						 results of poor work
    
    	smoking		death			same amount of 'residual'
    						effect as car exhaust,
    						industrial smoke, etc.
    
    Now - How many are mugged or robbed to buy cigarettes?
    	  How many car accidents are caused by too many cigarettes?

    Yes, I agree that nicotine is an addictive substance - BUT it does
    not have the effect on society, in general, that alcohol abuse and
    the drug problem do.
    
    	-Barry_who_still_smokes-
    

RE: < Note 716.335 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "You don't notice absence of pain" >
               -< Let's stop whining for the sake of whining... >-

  > re .334
    
Joe,

    Before you accuse me of whining, I'd be curious to see your response
    to the other two items I posted instead of just the first (and easiest
    one).
    
    Item 2 (testing for things other than drugs) has already happened, in a
    documented case where women's urine samples were tested for pregnancy
    as well as drugs.  The way drug testing is being implemented, there are
    absolutely *no* safeguards against that, and other tests, being done
    without the knowledge or permission of the employee and the results
    being used to affect that employee's career. 
    
    And IF the company's only concern is illegal substances, then why on
    earth wouldn't my item 3 (having a private doctor provide the company
    with a yes/no report) be perfectly acceptable to them? 
    
    							Pat

    	re .339
    
    	Calm down.
    
    	You know as well as I that for any argument there is always
    	"a case where" xyz refutes or distorts the intended outcome.
    
    	I don't really care to hear about "a documented case" or "it
    	could happen".  Nothing would ever get done for anything if
    	we held back because of one extreme example.
    
    	Let's stop whining for the sake of whining.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    Hmm.  Things are indeed getting stirred up again.
    
    Barry, I respect your opinion, and I certainly cannot dispute the
    impact that drugs and alcohol have on innocent bystanders.  It is
    a terrible waste of life, especially since the young seem most effected
    by it.  Nevertheless, more people die from nicotine than all the
    victims, innocent or otherwise, of drugs and alcohol.  Yet the
    treatment of each of the three categories is, IMHO, too inconsistent.
    Yes, possession of controlled substances should be illegal, of course.
    But nobody has the right to come up to me, without rhyme or reason,
    and tell me to fill a specimen bottle (or roll up my sleeve).
    
    Paul, I think you're taking this a little personally.  At least
    the tone of your sarcasm, and your rebuttal's lack of substance
    would seem so.  Perhaps we can debate this issue when you come up
    with one good reason why anyone should be allowed to waive all probable
    cause and invade my very body just to check up on me.  I think that's
    a pretty 'condescending', to use your word.
    
    I'm opposed to what happens, or at least what can happen to someone
    when the system DOESN't work the way it's supposed to.  When someone
    gets two false positives, or if they only get one false, but the
    word gets around about that, and only that 'positive' test.  Or perhaps
    it's a true positive, and they're fired.  Just precisely what constructive
    net good has that done?  Tell me how that individual's drug problem
    has been helped.  What miniscule statistic shall we use to measure
    this improvement for the greater good of society, or the workplace?
    How naive!  It's pretty cavalier to discard individual rights to
    the greater good of God, country and employer.  I can't accept those
    kind of values.
    
    It must be working.  These tactics are not new.  This treatment
    by punishment with only a token effort at rehabilitation of the
    real problem has been in place for many years, and how rewarding
    the improvement in the metrics has been.  It's a failure. The problem
    is real and growing, and the time for this kind of myopic, shallow, 
    self-righteous medieval inquisition has long since past.  I think
    we can be a little more creative in finding a workable solution.
    
    To me, the good of the one outweighs that of the many.  When
    the good of the many outweigh that of the individual, it is then
    that Paul's Orwellian eggplants are bound to sprout.  Funny Orwell
    should come up in this conversation, really, especially on the side
    IN FAVOR of monitoring the public's bodily fluids.  Strikes me as
    ironic, indeed.
    
    tim

    re: .338 and others
    
    I will happily grant that nicotine abuse has a far smaller effect
    on non-abusers than does drug or alcohol abuse.  But in the context
    of employment at Digital, i.e. where the buyer is reasonably well
    paid and not likely to resort to violence to support his habit,
    why doesn't alcohol receive the same tough treatment as illegal
    drugs?  The scope of alcoholism and consequences to individuals
    and society has been objectively documented for at least half a
    century.
    
    The answers to this question appear to have little to do with medical
    reasons or the safety and well-being of the general public.
    
    Wes Plouff

    This note appears to be getting off drug-testing at Digital (Jack
    RHines was the last relevant reply(?)) - there is a general topic on
    Drug Testing in PERA::SOAPBOX where some genuinely interesting
    discussions are taking place.
    
    I reccomend we all pursue drug testing per se in that conference.
    
    Andy (Digital Co-Mod and 'Boxer)

    Andy meant PEAR::SOAPBOX. (KP7 etc.)

    General society effects of drug use and the like belong elsewhere.
    Please keep replies here directly related to Digital.

    		Alfred co-moderator

    I was wondering when we would be moderated.  During the weekend
    I was considering entering a 'thank you' for the lack of censorship
    excercised to date -- moderators, you have been very fair.  I mean
    that quite sincerely.
    
    We cannot discuss our reasons for supporting or disputing the fairness
    of drug testing without discussing the subject itself.  I respectfully
    decline to cross reference my comments in another conference.  I
    feel the current popular wave of denial of the individual's rights
    is quite germaine to our discussion of drug testing in Digital.
    I'll see if I can keep using the word 'Digital' regularly, so we
    can keep in context.  (just kidding...:-)
    
    I've been with Digital for over ten years.  I feel strongly enough
    about the issue of drug testing as an invasion of my personal privacy,
    that I will decline if I am told I must submit to testing, especially
    on the whim of a manager, and without due process of law.
    
    My only point in this discussion is that I feel drug testing of
    any kind is an invasion of privacy.  Testing without probable cause
    is unfair, and I won't submit to it.  'Innocent until proven guilty'
    is a serious statement, and I expect my employer to treat it as
    such.  The McCarthyism of 'I have nothing to hide, have you?' is
    intolerable and as un-American as the guys in the white sheets and
    flaming crosses.  And just as two-faced.  It has no place in Digital.
    
    I apologize if this all seems to be too emotional for the more
    'moderate' (pun intended).  My words express my feelings on a subject
    that runs deep into the concepts of personal privacy and freedom
    of expression.  Neither our employer nor our government has the
    right to invade our bodies, nor to stifle our expression of objections 
    to their presumptuous intent!
    
    The moderators have done well by this topic.  It is a more insidious
    censorship that implies those of us who object must have something
    to hide, so dare not speak lest you be labelled a 'user'.  Personal
    freedom is too important to be left in the hands of those simpletons.
    

    re .345:
    
    Well said!  I agree strongly.
    
    re: second tests
    
    The "quick" test normally given as the first test has an extremely
    debatable level of accuracy.  If the sample is given under ideal cond-
    itions, handled properly, tested by an extremely diligent lab, the
    whole paper trail properly filled out, and the subject is taking none
    of the dozens of common KNOWN substances (and probably quite a few yet
    to be discovered) that cause false positives, I can believe that the
    test is 97% accurate (seen a number of different "authoritative"
    statements of just how accurate the test is).  Of course, the National
    Institutes of Health have found that IN PRACTICE, accuracy even for
    commonly done blood tests has been found to be less than 50% in some
    studies.  Given Digital's known high levels of organizational
    competence and efficiency (burst of wild laughter), I wouldn't bet my 
    career on the results - yours maybe.
    
    If a positive result is gotten from the first test, a much more
    expensive and supposedly more accurate set of tests is normally done.
    If THAT set also shows positive, then you have failed your FIRST test.
    Of course, this more accurate set of tests is subject to the same
    caveats as the first level.  If the reason for the problem is that your
    clean sample got mixed up with somebody elses (a not infrequent cause
    of errors according to the NIH studies), YOU will fail.  Digital will
    presumably carry out the second test with the same industry leading
    care and efficiency that was used in the first set.  ('Nother burst
    of extremely wild laughter.)
    
    /Dave

re: .341
    >To me, the good of the one outweighs that of the many.  When
    >the good of the many outweigh that of the individual, it is then
    >that Paul's Orwellian eggplants are bound to sprout.  Funny Orwell
    >should come up in this conversation, really, especially on the side
    >IN FAVOR of monitoring the public's bodily fluids.  Strikes me as
    >ironic, indeed.
    
You're very confused...if you can find a note of mine that supports drug testing
of any kind, I will mail you $100 dollars.  My comments may appear to lack 
substance to you because they are concerned with demonstrating the weakness
(and dangers) of your train of thought.

As for the esteemed moderators of this conference, I can only say in solidarity
with the survivors of the Chinese massacre, "Thank you for not shooting me."

Paul

RE: < Note 716.340 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "You don't notice absence of pain" >


   > re .339
    
   > Calm down.
    
   > You know as well as I that for any argument there is always
   > "a case where" xyz refutes or distorts the intended outcome.
    
      Joe, if I've ever heard a cop-out, that's it.
    
   > I don't really care to hear about "a documented case" or "it
   > could happen".  Nothing would ever get done for anything if
   > we held back because of one extreme example.
    
    That one extreme example involved many, many people. It was NOT
    a case of one person being affected.  Not that it would make any
    difference if it had only been one person, but for the record we're
    talking about one (extreme, really?) example that affected the careers
    of a large group of minority Americans.  And it's not a what-if,
    a speculation of what MIGHT happen if our rights are undermined
    with mandatory drug testing.  No, it's a living example of what
    already HAS happened.  And no one has given me any reason at all
    to believe it won't happen again.  And again.  And again.
    
   > Let's stop whining for the sake of whining.
    
     I am presenting logical arguments, to which you refuse to reply.


    
RE: the moderators
    
    I've been with Digital for over 11 years.  I see my career in jeopardy
    here.  I have seen nothing in the past 11 years MORE germane to working
    at Digital than the issues being discussed here.  Our very culture, the
    values on which our company was founded and has been run since its
    inception, are at stake. 
    
    In deference to the authority of the moderators, I will not enter any
    more replies to this note, though I strongly disagree that the tone of
    the topic is not relevant to this conference. 


    							Pat

:        talking about one (extreme, really?) example that affected the careers
:    of a large group of minority Americans.  
:
    
    1.  What minority might that be?  (I assume we're still talking
    about the unknown testing for pregnancy, no?)
    
    2.  What does _minority_  have to do with it?
    
    -Monty-

    My apologies if I implied to the contrary.  I did, however, get
    the distinct impression that you disagreed with me, at least on
    the issues of personal freedoms and responsibility.
    
    I take for granted the fact that individual rights include
    individual responsibilities.  Everyone should be held accountable
    for what they've done.  I just don't think everyone (or a convenient
    random subset thereof) should be held accountable for what they
    probably HAVEN'T done.  Perhaps you've read a little more into my
    comments than I intended.
    
    Then again, sometimes my words outrun my headlights.  Sorry.
    
    

    Sorry, I failed to reference my last reply.  It was re:.347, Paul
    Morgan's comments.
    
    
    

Re:  .329
>    I still have trouble seeing how firing a person who tests positive
>    for a drug has helped them.  It's only the abuse of illegal drugs

I think the point is that it's not done to help the employee - it's being done
to help protect teh company and the stockholders.  But not to help the
employee.

Steve

    	Firing the drug offender does not really help him/her (except maybe
    	as a kick in the pants...), but it does serve as an example and a
    	deterrent for other employees.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

RE: < Note 716.349 by WMOIS::D_MONTGOMERY "You seem to be a bit steamed" >
                                -< 2 questions >-

  > 1.  What minority might that be?  (I assume we're still talking
  > about the unknown testing for pregnancy, no?)
    
  > 2.  What does _minority_  have to do with it?
    
  > -Monty-
    
    My brain had already gone to lunch when I wrote that; my fingers
    were merely *thinking* about lunch but hadn't left yet.  (^;
    
    Sorry, don't know what I was thinking.  The group discriminated
    against was women, not a minority.
    
    							Pat

    ...and of course you can't get them on discrimination charges if they
    also test the men's samples for pregnant condition, correct??!
    
    ;^)
    Marge

Re: .353
        
>    	Firing the drug offender does not really help him/her (except maybe
>    	as a kick in the pants...), but it does serve as an example and a
>    	deterrent for other employees.

    I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to sacrifice my personal freedom
    to the simplistic and dubious cause of setting an example.  I think
    we'd have much more success if the cure wasn't worse than the disease.
    I think we have much more to lose by selling our privacy for the
    miniscule returns that deterrence can promise.
    
    I feel like too many people are more interested in a scapegoat than
    in actually solving the problem.  I think this is the wrong kind
    of example to be setting -- treat all substance abuse with a consistent
    policy of recovery and rehabilitation, not deterrence via random
    or blanket surveilance.  Nicotine, alcohol, and other drugs, probably
    in that order, should be treated with the goal of rehabilitation
    and the assurance of privacy.  Let the government deal with law 
    enforcement, and let Digital find better ways, more creative ways 
    to serve the good of its employees.  Now that would be impressive.

re Note 716.331 by SMOOT::ROTH:

> Companies are concerned about substance-abusers and what effects/mistakes/
> accidents they may cause while on the job, not whether they will die on the
> job or not.

        I don't believe that the effects on the abuser's job
        performance are the REAL motivation behind drug testing.

        I believe that the real reason is that there is a serious,
        drug-related crime wave in this country.  All traditional
        attacks on this problem seem to be nearly ineffectual.  Thus
        our society is looking for new ways to beat the drug problem. 
        If you can make the drug consumer fearful of losing her or
        his job, then perhaps you will cut down on the demand for
        drugs.

        Thus arguments that alcohol or nicotine causes more deaths or
        cost more in terms of poor job performance fall on deaf ears. 
        There is no alcohol- or nicotine-related crime wave in our
        cities and in our schools.  That's really what the majority
        is after, in my humble opinion.

        Bob

    I've stayed out of this so far.  There seems to be a real double
    standard regarding substance abuse in the country, extending to
    Digital.  
    
    If a person is an alcohol abuser, it seems that government and the 
    private sector consider that person 'sick' and do everything
    possible to facilitate his or her recovery.  
    
    If a person chooses another substance to abuse (including
    legal/prescribed drugs) besides alcohol, then the person is an 
    'addict' and is to be shunned, fired and if possible placed behind 
    bars, because 'addicts steal'. viz:
    
< Note 716.357 by XANADU::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (381-0899 ZKO3-2/T63)" >
        I believe that the real reason is that there is a serious,
        drug-related crime wave in this country. 
    
    Why would an alcoholic be less inclined to be a criminal than any
    other kind of substance abuser ?  .. And don't say 'beer costs less'!
    
    karl

    Your local chapter of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) will
    be happy to debate the damage caused by alcohol related 'crimes'.
    
    	-Barry-
    

    re .358 and hipocrisy

    There's no hipocrisy here. If you're abusing a legal substance, you
    get help. If you're abusing an illegal substance, it TI's case you
    get help the "first" time, "fired" the second time. If you're abusing
    legal drugs, Valium, for example, you're not treated as a criminal.

    Discussions of the hipocrisy of non-correlation of toxicity and
    illegality are more suited to SOAPBOX.

    Personally, I'm rather proud of Digital that we've adhered to
    a culture that values individuals and their rights by not implementing
    drug tests. That's not "right" as in "right to abuse substances" --
    it's "right" as in no one has the right to invade your body for their
    own purposes, however innocuous or well-intentioned.

    As a rule, Digital also does not permit customers to drug-test people
    who we send out on consulting assignments, although I've heard that it's
    not been possible to do this in at least one case where the cutomer had a
    blanket test of all new staff, permanent and temporary (and we could not
    afford to lose the business of a major account), in which case our
    employee was given the option to decline the assignment, no questions
    asked.

    It's been a while since I've check the orange book -- does anyone know
    what our official policy is in regards to drug testing of Digital
    employees by customers?

    /Peters

:    < Note 716.353 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "You don't notice absence of pain" >
:
:    	Firing the drug offender does not really help him/her (except maybe
:    	as a kick in the pants...), but it does serve as an example and a
:    	deterrent for other employees.
:    
:    	Joe Oppelt
    
    	
    		Actually, firing the drug offender DOES help him/her.
    NOT firing a substance abuser (assuming that the abuse has an adverse
    effect on job performance) merely makes DEC into another "enabler".
    
    Those of us who have studied and learned about substance abuse and
    substance abusers are very familiar with the detrimental effect
    that "enablers" have on the person who needs help.   In the home,
    the enabler might be the husband who calls in sick for his alcoholic
    wife when she can't get out of bed.  It might be the son or daughter
    who makes excuses for why Daddy can't come to the phone.  In the
    workplace, the enabler might be the addict's workmates, covering
    for him when he's unable to work.   It might even be a Personnel
    representative telling a manager to lighten up the load on someone
    with a substance problem because he/she "just needs time to deal
    with some stress".  
    
   Research has shown all too much how the enablers keep the abuser
    from admitting the problem (the first step toward getting better)
    by making the situation comfortable.
    
    In DEC's case, I agree that firing may be a little harsh, but I
    submit that an unpaid suspension for a person whose performance
    has been shown to be subpar _due_to_substance_abuse_ would be very
    reasonable.   This allows the abuser to have the time and opportunity
    to get help, while showing that the company will not tolerate the
    existing situation.  Subsequent abuse, or complete lack of effort
    to get help, should then result in termination.
    
    -Monty-

 re: .361

>  In DEC's case, I agree that firing may be a little harsh, but I
>    submit that an unpaid suspension for a person whose performance
>    has been shown to be subpar _due_to_substance_abuse_ would be very
>    reasonable.   This allows the abuser to have the time and opportunity
>    to get help, while showing that the company will not tolerate the
>    existing situation.  Subsequent abuse, or complete lack of effort
>    to get help, should then result in termination.


Note the elegance of this solution:

	1)  no new arbitrary regulations and testing are necessary

	2)  performance is a recognized metric that is relatively objective
	    to measure

	3)  no moral judgements are being made

	4)  removes the spectre of "absolute performance"

	    (a drug testing program would result in the firing of a brain-dead
	     Gordon Bell and the continued employment of a clean incompetent 
	     even though the Gordon Bell-type may still be an order of magnitude
	     more productive.)

	5)  there is no intrusion into employee's private lives

	6)  there is no lollipopping_of_the_masses going on as the individual
	    employee is still fully responsible for their lack of performance
	    as well as the necessary corrective action.

	7)  It highlights the employee performance issue which damn well needs
	    emphasis.  "Pay for performance" has become a sad joke.

	8)  It is very cost effective.  No need for expensive headshrinkers,
	    drug treatment programs, etc. 

Paul

    Re .333:
    
    > There is no doubt that drugs do impair judgement, and increase the
    > instances of accidents.
    
    I have doubt.
    
    
    Re .357:
    
    > I believe that the real reason is that there is a serious,
    > drug-related crime wave in this country.

    There is no "wave"; what is in the news is increased reporting of
    anti-drug mania.
    
    The crime that exists is more anti-drug-law related crime than drug
    related crime.     
    
    
    				-- edp

re Note 716.363 by ALIEN::POSTPISCHIL:

>     Re .357:
>     
>     > I believe that the real reason is that there is a serious,
>     > drug-related crime wave in this country.
> 
>     There is no "wave"; what is in the news is increased reporting of
>     anti-drug mania.
  
        Excuse me, I meant "there is a PERCEPTION of a serious,
        drug-related crime wave in this country."  Likewise, the
        PERCEPTION of alcohol abuse is that it's just not as
        threatening.

        TI and other companies are being enlisted to help in a
        national campaign against illegal drugs.  The incentive to
        the companies is that performance problems may decrease if
        harsh action is taken on users.

        Bob

    re .356

>    we'd have much more success if the cure wasn't worse than the disease.

    	Drug abuse is not a disease.  It is a criminal act.  Drug ADDICTION
    	may be a disease.  You consistently fail to address the distinction.
    
>    treat all substance abuse with a consistent
>    policy of recovery and rehabilitation, 

    	Recovery and rehabilitation from a criminal act?  If you come to
    	work with traces of drugs in your system, you are under the
    	influence of those drugs.  If those drugs are illegal, you are
    	violating the law while on company time and property, and are
    	subject to firing.  I think it would be magnanimous on the part
    	of a company to allow the employee to declare "addiction" and
    	get "treatment".  Subsequent violations deserve firing.  We are
    	subject to search when we leave plant property.  If we are found
    	stealing DEC property, we are subject to firing.  Is there a
    	difference here?  Both are criminal acts.  Can we turn around
    	and ask DEC to rehabilitate us if we are caught stealing?

>    Nicotine, alcohol, and other drugs, probably
>    in that order, should be treated with the goal of rehabilitation
    
    	Why put the illegal substance last?  Nicotine use is perfectly
    	legal.  Alcohol use is equally legal, although it is illegal
    	to perform certain functions under its influence.  Getting 
    	drunk IS abuse, although it is not illegal per se, and getting 
    	drunk does NOT necessarily imply addiction.  Abuse of illegal
    	drugs is always illegal.  Period.  Addiction to those illegal
    	drugs comes about through a series of illegal acts.  Coming to
    	work with traces of illegal substances in your system is an
    	illegal act.  DEC does not tolerate illegal activity on its
    	premises.  It would be nice for DEC to encourage rehabilitation
    	for employees dependent on various substances.  DEC should
    	have no responsibility for those who simply want to ABUSE such
    	substances.
    
>    Let the government deal with law enforcement, 

    	DEC is not interested in enforcing the law.  DEC is saying "Such
    	and such is against the law.  You cannot do that here.  If you
    	insist on doing that here, we ask you to leave.  We do not care
    	if you do it elsewhere after you leave."  (DEC does not notify
    	the authorities of a drug abuser who was fired.)
    
    	Joe Oppelt

>>>        DEC is not interested in enforcing the law.  DEC is saying "Such
>>>        and such is against the law.  You cannot do that here.  If you
>>>    	   insist on doing that here, we ask you to leave.  We do not care
>>>    	   if you do it elsewhere after you leave."  (DEC does not notify
>>>    	   the authorities of a drug abuser who was fired.)
   
    
    That is NOT what DEC is saying.  They're saying "if you use drugs
    at ANY time, even on vacation or weekends, and even if it has NO
    effect on your job performance, we're going to fire you."  
    
    I refuse to let DEC distate to me what I can or cannot do on my
    own time.
     
    Steve
    

    re .359 re my .358
    
    < Note 716.359 by NYEM1::MILBERG "Barry Milberg" >
>    Your local chapter of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) will
>    be happy to debate the damage caused by alcohol related 'crimes'.

    I asked why an alcohol abuser is LESS likely to commit a crime than
    other substance abusers.  Your reply is tangenital at best.  Besides,
    I don't need reminding about MADD. My wife is a member, as my stepson,
    aged 18, was killed in Sept. '87 by a drunk driver who was a repeat
    offender.  The repercussions from THAT are still felt in MY home.
    
    No, my point in .358, apparently too subtle, is that alcohol abuse
    by anyone, including Digital employees, though legal (money talks-
    big deal) is MORE likely to 'impair performance' on the job or even 
    kill than some discreet snorting or dope-smoking at home !

    Stating that we must crack down on drug use inside the corporation
    because there is a media-fed perception of a drug-related crime
    explosion is muddled thinking.  But noooo.. in order to ignore the 
    very real problems facing this country, huge deficit, inflation, 
    loss of prestige and U.S. corporations' market share around the 
    world, we must focus at all costs on the WAR ON DRUGS.

    karl

    < Note 716.365 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Change is the only constant." >

>    	Drug abuse is not a disease.  It is a criminal act.  Drug ADDICTION

    I beg to differ.  Drug addiction is a disease, abuse is a symptom,
    and diagnosis of the distinction is apparently of no interest to
    those who care more about the legal costs than the human costs.
    I'm trying to emphasize the need to focus on diagnosing and curing
    the disease, and let the laws be changed to fit the need.  
    
>    	Recovery and rehabilitation from a criminal act?  If you come to
>    	work with traces of drugs in your system, you are under the
>    	influence of those drugs.  

    First of all, there's nothing new about the idea of rehabilitation
    in criminal justice.  Secondly, traces of drugs can remain in your
    system long past the point where you are no longer under the influence,
    quite litterally months afterward.
    
>        	Why put the illegal substance last?  Nicotine use is perfectly
>    	legal.  
    
    The focus is on the substances that cost the most in human lives,
    not the ones that are least popular, as reflected in current legal
    statutes.  
    
    Where I really disagree is that it is more than just 'nice' for
    an employer to 'encourage' rehabilitation, it's in everyone's best
    interest to pursue it whole-heartedly.  I really don't believe that
    mere legistation and overly zealous enforcement will solve this
    problem.  I think the problem is too pervasive and profound.  On
    the other hand, I think that the more attractive that rehabilitation
    can be made, the more approachable the cure will be.
    
    It's just too callous, too self-righteous to depend on traditional
    law enforcement to fix the problem as if it were just an intractible
    minority of disposable sub-humans involved.  It's pretty naive too.
    Maybe I'm just not so impressed by the sentiment, 'Gee, you can't
    do that, that's ILLEGAL!'.  Laws can be changed, if people's attitudes
    change first.

{:    That is NOT what DEC is saying.  They're saying "if you use drugs
:    at ANY time, even on vacation or weekends, and even if it has NO
:    effect on your job performance, we're going to fire you."      
:
    
    	 I don't recall seeing _any_ "corrective action" mandated,
    recommended, or even hinted at in any of the official communications
    regarding drug testing or drug-free workplaces.
    
    As far as I can tell , DEC's position is that DEC will _try_ to
    adhere to vendor policies from our customers (read: Uncle Sam) by
    striving for a drug-free workplace (which may or may not include
    testing of employees).  Even if testing were to take place, I can't
    remember seeing _anything_ spelling out the consequences of failing
    a test.   There's been one heck of a lot of speculation and innuendo
    in this topic (Are y'all the same people that thought rock'n'roll
    was the degradation of the human soul in the '60's?), but it seems
    rather unfounded to me.
    
    -DM-
    

re .369

Ya know, I tried to tell him this by mail, so that maybe he would delete his
silly message.  But I received a reply that he was sticking to his guns.

I think he was confused about what TI is doing and somehow thought DEC was
doing it, too.

    RE: .370
    
> I think he was confused about what TI is doing and somehow thought DEC was
> doing it, too.
    
    However, it NOT unreasonable, given the similarities between the
    `culture' of TI and DEC, that our management might take the similar
    measures.
    
- Vikas

Re:< Note 716.371 by SERPNT::SONTAKKE "Vikas Sontakke" >
        -< Would DEC follow the path lead by IBM, TI?  Eventually, YES >-

    Exactly.  And that's why I feel so strongly about voicing opposition
    to such authoritarian tactics.  I think we need to encourage management
    to demonstrate they still have a backbone.  It is a real test of
    values, and the lack of commitment to date is discouraging, to me.
    
    It's no small issue of semantics.  It's important.
    

Re:< Note 716.371 by SERPNT::SONTAKKE "Vikas Sontakke" >
        -< Would DEC follow the path lead by IBM, TI?  Eventually, YES >-

    
    
    Please support this by some allusion to fact.

    Thanks.
    
    Andy

    re.371
    > However, it (is) NOT unreasonable, given the similarities between
    the 'culture' of TI and DEC, that management might take the
    similar......
    
    Vikas,
       Having worked at TI for nearly three years in the early 80's,
    my personal experience is that (thankfully) there are more differences
    than similarities in the "culture" at TI and DEC.
    DEC is a great place to work, after you've experienced the "here's
    two weeks pay, we don't need you any more" lay off policy that TI
    and others have.
    IMOH
    
    Barry

>    It is the responsibility of citizenship to support (not break) the
>    law. 

You'd make a good soldier in Deng's army.

    re: .-1 and "false positives"
    
>    So 4 of the 5 were not 'false positives.' The 5th is unknown. Three
>    of the five were liars. Yes, its a small sample, but, since the tests

    So, what's 20 (perhaps 40) percent of 70,000+ U.S. employees?  I
    hope you're not implying this is an acceptable error rate!  Anyway,
    all it takes is *ONE* of these errors successfully presented in
    court to cost the company *millions* of dollars, try multiplying
    that by 20 percent.
    
>   1 Was set up. He was an unpopular NCO because he was a strict
>     disciplinarian. No one really believed he was a user, but he

    This presents some interesting possibilities ... considering that
    it can come from *both* directions, above or below ...
    
>   A few noters have suggested the drug-related crime problem is hyped
>   out of proportion by the media or some self-serving special interest
>   groups. I believe this to be propaganda spread by a far more dangerous
>   special interest group interested in the spread instead of the
>   eradication of drug abuse.
    
    When I first read this, I thought that you were implying that all
    'noters who suggested that the media was biased were themselves
    drug users or pushers.  You might want to clarify this.  As far
    as the "self-serving special interest groups" are concerned, have
    you ever encountered a governmental agency that was interested in
    *lessening* its span of control? 
    
    IF drug abuse and crime are a national crisis, then the problem
    should be addressed on a national basis, by a government that is
    restrained from abuse by statutes and the Constitution.  I don't
    see any reason to allow the government to circumvent these laws
    by pressuring private employers into doing the dirty work.  IF
    Digital Equipment Corporation is suffering financially from any
    employees who are failing to perform responsibly (for whatever
    reason) then Digital already has policies and procedures to deal
    with this.  The Company has a right to expect that employees will
    live up to their employee agreement and do a good job for our wages.
    But I don't think the Company has an absolute right to control the
    employee under any and all circumstances.  We are not slaves, but
    employees, and our private lives should remain our own.
    
    Geoff

    re.376
    
    Not so! I do not support tyranny, slaughter, or repression of 
    innocents, whether it be by governments or organized criminals.
    
    As a matter of fact, I view with equal disgust the actions of
    Deng's version of 'Krystal Nacht' and the actions of the drug
    'culture' in this hemisphere. They both deal in death and the 
    subversion of truth to the personal gain of an elite who consider 
    themselves above the law. They are in the same league as Hitler,
    Stalin, and Idi Amin, whose abuse of the welfare of their society 
    brought only destruction to their people. 
    
    John B.

    re: .377
    
    I just read your reply quickly, and MUST quickly point out
    that I in no NO WAY intend to equate any contributor to this
    discussion with any drug use or abuse. No, I intend to point
    out that many honest people believe propaganda in spite of the
    evidence to the contrary.
    
    I fully know that I, alone, cannot change the opinions of anyone
    who believes as strongly in their point of view as I believe in
    mine. ...but that is one of the benefits to the freedoms we have
    and the utility of conferences such as these. We can express our
    points of view honestly and still work to the improvement of 
    our societal culture AND our work 'culture.' 
    
    ...more later!
    
    John B.
    

>    Not so! I do not support tyranny, slaughter, or repression of 
>    innocents, whether it be by governments or organized criminals.

But under the laws in the country where they reside, they are not innocent.

Nor am I innocent for selling my symphony tickets to friends, since I was
going to be out of town.  (A crime in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.)

/john

    re .375 et al
    
>     A few noters have suggested the drug-related crime problem is hyped
>    out of proportion by the media or some self-serving special interest
    
    There is a degree of historical precedence for the 'hyping' of drug
    related issues in the US, both by the press and politicians to serve
    their own interests. Enough to make one view ANY drug related news item
    as potential hype.
    
    If you are interested in learning more about this aspect of the 'War on
    Drugs', I can strongly recommend the Consumers Union publication 'Licit
    and Illicit Drugs'.  It is a little out of date (1980 I think) so it's
    medical and pharmacological information may not represent more recent
    research, although it has some interesting points to make about this
    research. It is certainly useful as a reference for historical
    information on drug use in the US and the politics thereof.
    
    If anyone is interested, I can provide details on publisher, ISBN, etc.
    
    gary

    re: all the hard line replies past about .300
    
    It's difficult to read all the recent replies without making a heated
    response.  Regretfully, dear Moderators, I succumbed to that temptation
    in the .340's.
    
    Back closer to the original topic, the use of random drug tests implied
    in .9, and their effect on the Digital culture.  Note that these tests
    detect drug use, not abuse.  I think it's important to keep in mind
    that we're talking about all illegal drug users, not just the chronic
    abusers.  
    
    My personal opinion is that law enforcement should follow the rules
    laid out by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth amendments -- but if
    Digital couples mandatory rehabilitation/punishment to random testing,
    that's irrelevant.
    
    To those out there who advocate a tough stand on illegal drug use by
    employees: Digital's corporate culture emphasizes individual initiative
    and individual responsibility, as well as a high degree of trust
    between people.  How do you think that random testing and hard-line
    policies will affect these ideals?  Is the benefit worth the social and
    bottom-line cost? 
    
    Wes Plouff

    Re .375:
    
    According to your own report, 20 or 40% of the punished people were
    innocent.  Would it be acceptable for our jails to be filled with 20 or
    40% innocent people?  If Digital starts firing people because of
    positive tests and 20 or 40% of those people are innocent, do you think
    that's okay?
    
    > I believe this to be propaganda spread by a far more dangerous
    > special interest group interested in the spread instead of the
    > eradication of drug abuse. 
    
    This is absolute nonsense entirely without evidence of any sort.
                
    
    				-- edp  

    re:.382
    
    In my opinion, if Digital incorporates Drug testing (either random,
    or as a part of a cutomer requirement) the following would be
    reasonable options:
    
    1.  Even if a Digital employee tested positive (multiple tests)
        I do not think he would be summarily fired. If the customer
        had a drug-free requirement, then he probably would be relieved
        from that assignment, given another, and given the opportunity
        for rehab programs. Relief from a job assignment would not
        be necessary if there were no customer requirement or his problem
        posed no safety considerations (such as operating heavy equipment).
    
    2.  Termination (firing) would only occur when the drug habit affected
        job performance, indicated intoxication on-the-job, and the
        employee did not respond to rehabilitation programs. Of course,
        conviction and imprisonment for felony crimes (such as drug
        dealing) would result in termination. A personnel/mamagement
        descision would be needed for those cases where conviction of
        a felony did NOT result in a prison sentence. I think they should
        be handled on a case-by-case basis.
    
    Just my opinion...
    
    John B.

    Re: Those commenting on the 20-40% indication of my experience related
        in reply .375...
    
    No, I certainly do NOT believe a 20% false positive rate is acceptable!
    As I said in my reply (.375), this sample is small. Obviously, it
    cannot be used to predict a failure rate or a success rate. The
    indication was that, in this case, most of the results were NOT
    really false positives, and the truth of one is known ONLY to the
    individual concerned. Neither do I believe that an employee should
    be fired for just testing positive. If testing is required at a
    customer's location, and an employee cannot meet the drug-free
    requirement, he should be offered rehabilitation and a job at
    a location where the drug testing requirement is not a condition
    of employment. 
    
    Digital is not a law enforcement agency, nor an agent of social
    change. It has accepted a responsibility to assist employees with
    problems of several sorts through several programs and through an
    extremely positive 'valuing differences' philosophy. Digital will
    meet customer requirements, I believe, and may well institute drug
    testing programs  where required. 
    
    If the problem exists, it will not improve by ignoring it or
    encouraging resistance to identification and assistance programs.

    I, for one, am glad I work for a company that would rather help
    than just fire someone. There are companies out there that are not
    so concerned.
    
    John B.

    If Digital is willing to start the drug testing program from the TOP,
    then only I will believe that it is really serious about stopping the
    drug abuse.
    
    If what hypothetical_I do is so important and so critical that Digital
    wants hypothetical_me to submit to drug testing, shouldn't
    hypothetical_my boss be the one standing in the line in front of
    me?  Isn't it obvious that what hypothetical_my boss does is ten
    times more important and more critical than what hypothetical_I do?

    Unfortunately, in real life people at the top (e.g. elected officials,
    appointed bureaucrats) use drug testing on OTHERS to show who is
    the boss.
    
    If you think that we need drug free train drivers but don't care if the
    President is high, you have been brain-washed by the propaganda.
    
- Vikas 

    re .385 and responses to .375
    
    As I read .375, 20-40% of the positives were false, not 20-40% of
    all tests.  I think some of the replies assumed the latter
    interpetation.  I think a false positive rate of even 1% would be too
    high, especially if it caused drastic actions such as firing.  One
    percent of Digits is 1,000 people.
    

    < Note 716.375 by CLOSUS::J_BUTLER "Leave it better than you found it..." >
                               -< My Experience >-
>    A few noters have suggested the drug-related crime problem is hyped
>    out of proportion by the media or some self-serving special interest
>    groups. 
    
    I am one of the few noters that think that the 'drug-related crime
    problem' is just a government-encouraged media barrage to distract
    citizens from REAL issues, like the environment, running out of
    oil (with no viable alternative energy research being funded), 
    acid rain, inflation, the deficit, the out-of-control arms race,
    falling dollar, overpopulation, and loss of U.S. prestige abroad.... 
    
>    I believe this to be propaganda spread by a far more dangerous
>    special interest group interested in the spread instead of the
>    eradication of drug abuse.

    I resent this last intensely.. especially in light of the above
    REAL issues.  J Butler assumes that if one's priorities are different
    from his/hers, then one must necessarily be part of a secret (and
    well-paid, I assume) DRUG CABAL.  Well, I'm NOT !  I happen to believe
    that these other issues are FAR more important than testing employees'
    piss for drug traces !  
    
    karl moeller, obviously a person with something to hide

>    I believe this to be propaganda spread by a far more dangerous
>    special interest group interested in the spread instead of the
>    eradication of drug abuse.

While I don't know whether Karl Moeller's analysis of the above is correct, I
find it most interesting that one of the socialist groups operating in the U.S.
is stating just that.

Sunday I attended the memorial service for victims of the Beijing Massacre held
at the site of the 1770 Boston Massacre.  Several different socialist groups
were there handing out their rags (Socialist Worker, Workers Advocate, ...)
and someone was following one of the paper-hawkers saying, "Communist Newspaper,
brought to you by the people who brought you the massacre."  But I digress.

One of these rags claimed that all of the drug arrests of black people is a
evil plan by Bush and the Bosses to destroy the black community.

/john

    With unemployment at a low, with American high schools having an
    extremely high drop out rate, with the quality of American education
    suffering,... I wonder how American industry can decide that they
    do not need the (apparently) thousands and thousands of skilled
    and experienced pot smokers.
    
    The assumption seems to be that they do not contribute, I wonder
    if that is true.  Perhaps certain drug users have personality traits
    that other people don't have.  They are apparently more prone to
    risk taking... often a useful trait in the business world.  
    They may be more creative as well.
    
    I will be interested in seeing how well American business actually
    does without them.  Government is full of clean, straight people
    and we all know how intelligent and efficent government is.
    Once forced out of mainstream jobs, how will these people live?
    Well, I assume they will turn their talents and intelligence to
    other ways of making money.  
    
    I also assume that they will have totally 'lost faith' in the
    government and in society (as it is obvious that neither cares diddle 
    about them) so they will feel free to be as creative and to take as
    many risks as they deem necessary with all of that experience and all 
    of those acquired skills.  They will have been forced out of the
    mainstream of society but they will not merely dry up and go away.
    They are at the present time (for the most part) contributing members
    of society.  They will become (for the most part), an unknown,
    uncontrolled, unproductive (in the traditional sense of the word)
    and dangerous element.  
    
    Why dangerous?   Because the unknown element adds a level of chaos
    that can totally disrupt the 'status quo'.   This may be the dumbest
    thing the government has ever done.
    
    Should prove to be interesting times._:-)   

>    Isn't that what people are asking to do?
    
        Not in my opinion.

        	Mike

    re: .375 and .378...
    
    The interesting question is how much of the "special interest groups"
    and "drug culture...hitler" are composed of the illegal drug industry
    and how much is composed of the enforcement agencies (e.g. DEA,
    Customs ...). Were *I* a "drug lord", I would support massive increases
    in enforcement (not treatment) because the effect of that would
    simply be to increase my proffit margin.

    We've come a long way. Witches, communists and now drug users.
    
    I like to think Digital won't waist effort and $ on drug testing.  We
    are in the computer business not drug enforcement.

    This is why I have a problem with drug testing at Digital;
    
    What is the goal of testing at work?  To determine which employees
    are on drugs while on the job for improved job performance and the
    safety of others (assumption).  And this is where I think the testing
    fails.  Drug testing by Digital will not only point out who is on
    drugs at work but also those employees who use drugs outside the
    work place.  At work, I agree, employees should not be high on drugs
    for all kinds of reasons but, what people care to do to themselves
    in the privacy of their homes is their business.  I don't care,
    unless it effects job performance and then it becomes a performance
    issue.  If performance is suffering and can be attributed to some
    form of drug abuse then offer that person help and a chance to get
    better.
    
    I understand many drugs can show on sophisticated testing long after
    ingested.  Until a test can differentiate between who is at work
    on drugs and someone who used some drugs last weekend, I am against
    it at Digital.  By testing, Digital would be doing more than supplying
    a drug free work environment.  Digital would be saying anyone who
    uses drugs anytime, at work or whenever, should not be employeed
    here.  I don't think we work for that kind of company.
    
    It's really a tough issue but, I don't feel the current testing
    procedures are adequate for the goal of a drug free work place.
    
    And, firing employees who simple test positive, no performance
    problems, no signs of use at work is wrong for us.  It's not like
    we're airline pilots, bus drivers etc. Plus, I think we would loose
    many valuable corporate citizens who do drugs on their own time.
    
    Hypothetically;  A few years from today, all major corporations
    policy is to fire any employeee who tests positive.
    
    That person can:
    
    1. Clean up their act and find a new job.
    2. Find a meanial job with no testing.
    3. Deal in illeagle drugs.
    
    I don't think testing is going to accomplish much for Digital except
    to make us another "me too" company when dealing with goverment
    accounts.

> < Note 716.406 by SHALOT::NICODEM "Delays? We don't need no stinkin' delays!" >
>
>    	I could be wrong, but couldn't one build a case that said "If
>    someone has sufficient drugs in their system to TEST positive in
>    the workplace, then that will affect their work REGARLDESS of whether
>    the drugs were actually ingested "in the privacy of their homes"?

Some (perhaps most) drug tests do not test for the presence of the drug,
but for the presence of metabolized drug residue ("metabolites").
In some cases, the metabolites can be retained in the system for days
or weeks after ingestion.  In many cases, the metabolites can be generated
from substances other than the drug being sought (hence the poppy seed
bun leading to positive indications of opiates).

Yes, you are right, one COULD build a case for continued impairment,
and that's a fundamental approach being used to legitimize drug testing.
But this approach is not universally applicable.

- tom]

PS:  Testing for alcohol is an exception.  The test for blood alcohol levels
is a test for the presence of alcohol, and the level of alcohol can be 
directly related to impairment.  This is not a good precedent for testing for
other drugs, for many reasons.

>    	I could be wrong, but couldn't one build a case that said "If
>    someone has sufficient drugs in their system to TEST positive in
>    the workplace, then that will affect their work REGARLDESS of whether
>    the drugs were actually ingested "in the privacy of their homes"?

You are wrong.  An employee can test positive weeks or months after using a
drug, or as a result of eating a poppy seed bun that morning.  This has already
been discussed in detail; read the existing replies.

/john

    The technical details of testing, the potential carry-over of
    impairment, the moral issues surrounding drugs themselves are
    smoke-screens around a base issues.
    
    On the one hand we have "management", be it Digital's or the
    government's, abrogating their responsibility to manage people and
    their performance.  I don't really care what you're on or not on
    as long as it doesn't adversely affect your performance.  Personally,
    I have come to work under the influence of 24-hour cold remedies
    and performed quite ineffectively.
    
    On the other hand we have the rest of us trying to maintain our
    perceived level of 'basic rights' from a position of financial weakness
    (i.e. we'd like to stay employed).  We are, as usual, asked to give
    up something so that "management" or "the powers that be" or whoever
    they are can get away with incompetence.
    
    In the case of drugs, the "war" is being taken to the work-place
    because the government has been absolutely useless in thge streets.
    It's kindergarten again, folks, we all have to stay in because the
    teacher's too stupid to figure out who wrote the four-letter word
    on the board.
    

    I hate to see government get involved in the workplace because they
    can't seem to do anything right.  They have made a mess of government,
    there are scandals galore, the state and federal economy has been
    consistently mishandled.  
    
    Government involvement in the workplace only means that they bring the 
    same level of incompetence and corruption here that they have
    displayed in their own field.  Who in their right mind would want
    DEC run like the government is run?  Who in their right mind would
    consider William Bennett style of management as productive and
    efficient?  
    
    What this country needs is less government interference, not more.
    
    Mary

    The basic point that a lot of folks seem to be missing is that the
    prime reason for DOD asking for people to be drug free is an attempt
    to lessen the possibility of a person doing something (e.g., selling
    information) as a result of their drug use.  Face it, people with a
    monkey on their back will do anything necessary to feed it.  I've
    seen people have their clearance pulled for things with a lot less
    potential for placing them in a compromising position than would a
    drug habit.

    re: .411
    
    Now the reasoning is more autocratic.  It's bad enough to attack
    people for their mind-expanding or -collapsing weekend activities
    because they might wander in to work a little less robust-of-mind
    than when they were hired and screw things up (like a SDI box
    which decides LA is strategically objectionable) but to suggest
    they are not reliable because they have more reason to sell-out.
    
    Give me a break!  I'd sell out for a deep-metallic blue '67 Cobra
    or a Kirstie Alley clone long before I'd go for broke on any chemical.
    I guess DoD should stop doing business with:
      - people who smoke (dope or tobacco) as the price keeps rising;
      - people who drink as the taxes keep rising;
      - people who gamble;
      - people who like any kind of expensive or quality 'things';
      - people who like people (if you get my drift); and
      - people who eat.
    
    By the time they get their weapons and systems from the 'perfect
    source' there'll be nothing left to defend and no-one in their Forces.
    
    Besides, if the 'enemy' wants to know our secrets, they don't have
    to prey on our weaknesses - they just need to interrogate Charlie
    Matco.
    

More fuel for the fire.
    
A person I know applied for employment recently.  The following document was
attached to the back of the application for employment.  This company is a 
MAJOR  communications corporation.  Also, this corporation has a LARGE family
of companies.

START OF DOCUMENT.

Dear Applicant:

The xxx Company has a commitment to the public it serves and to its employees
to provide quality service and a safe workplace.  In the furtherance of the
Company's safety programs and to avoid drug-related work performance problems,
the Company is striving for a drug-free environment.  As a result, if an offer
of employment is made to you, you will be asked to complete the medical process
which includes drug testing for a range of chemical substances, which may
include some drugs which are available by prescription and over-the-counter, as
well as illegal substances.  Any offer of employment is contingent upon
satisfactory completion of the medical process, including the drug screening
tests.

PAGE TWO.

I understand and acknowledge that any offer of employment made to me by xxx
Company is contingent upon the satisfactory completion of the medical process,
including but not limited to testing for use of certain drugs.

I hereby consent to drug testing as defined and administered by the Company,
and I release the Company from any and all liability for such testing of drugs,
including but not limited to illegal drugs such a marijuana, cocaine, and
heroin; certain prescription drugs, such as valium; and certain
over-the-counter drugs. The purpose of the test will be to determine whether I
am using or have recently used any such drugs.

I also consent to the release by the Medical Department of the xxx Company of
the results of the drug screening to certain representatives of the Company who
have the need to know, including but not limited to appropriate members of the
Employment and Legal Departments, and I release the Company from any and all
liability for such disclosure.

In the event a positive test result is obtained, I will be advised of the
results.

END OF DOCUMENT.

I would like to think Digital would pull this kind of garbage.

    >What this country needs is less government interference, not more.
    
    Hmm, I obviously haven't quite grasped Amur'can politics correctly.
    The Republicans claim to stand for less gum'mint, but they seem to
    keep passing more and more laws against the people...
    
    

If someone were going to be tested for drugs could they simply just suspend
their drug use for a month or two...?

Lee

    re .415
    
    Yes, abstaining for an appropriate amount of time would allow you to
    pass the test. Of course, by doing so you are implicitly voicing your
    approval of this form of testing.
    
    Note also that they reserve the right to test for anything they please.
    This allows them to discriminate against, say, allergy sufferers,
    people who eat chocolate or many, many other factors.
    
    re .411
    
    The DoD have been doing various forms of screening for high security
    jobs for many, many years. It doesn't seem to have made much
    difference.
    
    re .412
    
    If the DoD can't find anyone to buy new toys from, they won't be able
    to spend as much money. You may be on to something there :-)
    
    re .414
    
    You are making the mistake of thinking that The War on Drugs (tm) is
    something more than a political diversion to keep the press and public
    amused.
    
    gary

Note 716.414                
MU::PORTER 

>    Hmm, I obviously haven't quite grasped Amur'can politics correctly.
>    The Republicans claim to stand for less gum'mint, but they seem to
>    keep passing more and more laws against the people...
    
Talk is cheap (and politicians love to talk).  To coin a biblical phrase, 
"By their works shall you know them". 

Note 716.415                
SMOOT::ROTH 

>If someone were going to be tested for drugs could they simply just suspend
>their drug use for a month or two...?

Lee, they don't test for the actual drug itself and the whole point of
random testing is that the subject is given no warning.  Some traces show up 
in a test months afterwards, others will leave no trace in the system in a 
matter of hours.  Interestingly, the more innocuous drugs are those 
that show up months after use.  Other substances such as poppy seed
dinner rolls and common cold medication may cause a false positive test
result.        

It is also possible that these tests could also be used for other 
screening purposes, such as pregnancy screening, AIDS screening, and the 
presence of other health problems that could possibly cause future employment 
problem or expensive employee benefits.

    Re .411
    
     FWIW:  The KBG has a policy of not recuiting drug users because
          they consider them unreliable. 
            Also, I don't know if you have noticed or not but almost
           all those arrested for espionage in the US in recent years
           have been career military types with years of exemplary
           service. 

                                                       Mike

    Reading this note set I have noticed that there is much do-about not
    wanting to be tested. Is the underlieing truth the fact that we as a
    socity are a group of users and don't want anyone to know about it.
    Face up to the facts - if you use you use and you know what your
    liminitations are when you are using or recovering from the effects of
    using. Having only worked at DEC for only a couple of years I know I
    shouldn't cast stones, cast I will.  I have seen the effects of work
    done by or attempted to by done by someone who was under the influence
    or recovering from the influence of substance abuse or use. At one time
    I was forced to work with an individual in this condition. NO THANK
    YOU!!! Burn your brain out on your own time and recover on your own
    time, but don't waste my mind and time with your foolishness.
    
    Jan 
    

Note 716.419                
FOOZLE::SHELDON 

>    Reading this note set I have noticed that there is much do-about not
>    wanting to be tested. Is the underlieing truth the fact that we as a
>    socity are a group of users and don't want anyone to know about it.

The truth may be that we, as Americans, find drug testing to be humiliating,
intrusive, and unnecessary.  It may also be true that we don't like being
intimidated or threatened by government policy.  We may also find intrusive
policy to be unconstitutional.

>    Face up to the facts - if you use you use and you know what your
>    liminitations are when you are using or recovering from the effects of
>    using. Having only worked at DEC for only a couple of years I know I
>    shouldn't cast stones, cast I will.  

People are reviewed on a regular basis.  That review identifies any problems
that may exist and places a focus on their correction.  If it is productivity
that is the concern, then that is addressed already in the review process.

>    I have seen the effects of work
>    done by or attempted to by done by someone who was under the influence
>    or recovering from the influence of substance abuse or use. 

How do you know that?  How do you know that a particular piece of work was 
done by someone who was under the influence or not?  What proof do you have 
of such a serious accusation?

>   At one time
>    I was forced to work with an individual in this condition. NO THANK
>    YOU!!! Burn your brain out on your own time and recover on your own
>    time, but don't waste my mind and time with your foolishness.

Since we do not conduct drug testing here, I have to assume that you are
either mistaken in your estimation or confused as to your facts Jan.
I find it very difficult to believe that a manager would test someone, find
out that the person tested positive, and then assign the person to work
with you.  

Perhaps you disliked the particular individual, or had a job related problem
yourself that you blamed on the other individual.  Regardless, your experience 
obviously happened under extreme and unusual circumstances and is irrelevant 
to the daily working conditions here.

It is unwise to accuse people with whom you disagree of committing a crime
in a public notesfile, as is shown in your statement "Burn your brain out 
on your own time and recover on your own time, but don't waste my mind and 
time with your foolishness", and probably illegal as well.  It could possibly
be interpreted as libel, slander, and/or defamation of character by previous
contributors.

It also indicates that an individual can be substance free and still lack 
spelling and grammar skills, logical thinking, and courtesy.

Mary Stanley

    Re: 716.419
    
    There is little doubt that drugs, including alcohol, have little
    redeeming social value, but that isn't the point to objecting to drug
    testing at Digital (or anywhere else).
    
    First of all, currently the primary goal of drug testing is to identify
    and punish (or, to use the popular euphemism, 'deter') the user. 
    Rehabilitation is almost an afterthought, and left solely in the hands
    of the person least capable of ensuring success: the user themselves.
    'Clean up your act, or get fired/prosecuted/whatever' is a naive, and
    socially irresponsible philosophy.  Serious addicts couldn't care less
    about such threats, so it's only likely success will be among the
    casual users
    
    Secondly, and more importantly, mandatory indescriminant testing is
    illegal, for the same reason that the police must show probable cause
    to pull you over on the highway and test your sobriety, or search your
    person.  If we allow this violation of our unalienable right to due
    process, then what stands in the way of mandatory pregnancy tests, AIDS
    tests, diabetes tests, VD tests, genetic tests, or worse?  And what
    guarantees of privacy does the victim of these tests have?  Given the
    opportunity, any well-intentioned violation of individual rights can
    and will be perverted toward an insidious end.
    
    How about this: suppose it became legal to test voters for drugs at the
    polls?  Seems like a drug user's judgement should be too impaired to
    make a sound decision.  Sounds reasonable.  Even sounds familiar.
    
    While your at it, give 'em literacy tests too.  Welcome to Mississippi,
    circa 1950.
    
    Sure drugs are a problem.  Civil rights are a bigger problem, and
    effect EVERYBODY, eventually.  Don't sell them so cheaply, rather then
    spend the time, effort and money on the real solution.
    
    

    re 716.419...
    
    Spare me.  Another "Anyone who opposes mandatory drug testing OBVIOUSLY
    has something to hide and is probably a criminal" noter.  
    
    Civil liberty is such an ephemeral concept I guess it's difficult for 
    some minds to understand.  Not to mention the even less clear issues
    of the government trying to force private industry to implement
    screamingly unconstitutional invasions of privacy on its employees.
    
    So when in doubt, shout and point...
    
    karl moeller SWS Consultant    

    Re .419:
    
    > Is the underlieing truth the fact that we as a socity are a group of
    > users and don't want anyone to know about it.
    
    No.  What is there that makes you accuse people so?
    
    I put a good deal of effort into explaining why drug tests are bad for
    everybody.  You will find those explanations in .247.
    
    I only use drugs a little.  I don't smoke -- no nicotine.  I don't like
    coffee or tea, so the only caffeine I get is from sodas that are not
    available without caffeine.  The only alcohol I've had in the last nine
    months or so is from a sip of champagne during a wedding toast.  I even
    probably make less use than other people of medications like pain
    killers or cold remedies.  I have a prescription I've used twice in the
    past year.  I take no other drugs.
    
    I am probably cleaner than William Bennett, our drug czar, but the
    reasons given in .247 still apply to me.  The freedom of myself and
    others is more important than a political crusade. 
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re: [.420]:  The reaction against possible drug testing has reached
    hysterical proportions.  Now it is a crime even to accuse a coworker of
    being under the influence of drugs.  Gee, I've known people who have
    voluntarily brought up the fact that they were hung over at work, or 
    drank on the job, or were, in one memorable phrase, born with a silver 
    spoon up their nose; but I'd better not say that, or I might be guilty of
    "libel, slander, and/or defamation of character."  No, not one of the
    112,000 employees of Digital Equipment Corporation has ever used drugs
    on the job, or reported for work under the influence.  No sir.  Don't
    even think about it.
    
    I think the conclusion of .420 was beyond the bounds of etiquette for 
    this Notes file.
    
    

    re .425:
    
    Accusing a co-worker of being under the influence of drugs *without
    proof* or any mention of what was done to correct the situation (like
    dsiscuss the worker *performance* with management) is not a crime, but 
    is certainly extremely poor judgement.  Sufficiently poor as to justify
    at least some questions about the accusers qualifications and state of
    mind.
    
    /Dave

Absolutely agree with Don's conclusions (-.1).

If someone's `abusing' substances and it doesn't effect their
peformance, what has it got to do with DEC? If a person's performance
is effected, then DEC has every right to find out why: but it's the
performance issue that has to be the trigger for any `investigation'
(to be followed-up by help rather than punishment, I would trust).
By `performance' I include all of the usual metrics against which
people are judged (for example, including ability to work with
people).

This principle should be enough to cover all of the scenarios so far
described, even some of the clearly bizarre ones.

What bothers me is that some people are clearly in favour of drugs
testing, not to prevent DEC suffering low performance because of drug
abuse, but because of an intolerance of some people's lifestyles (for
example, where they're big drinkers). 

Reaching for a legislative - and destructive - weapon is to simply
shrug off the personal responsibilities involved in being tolerant
and valuing differences. Those last must be our principles because
they add value to all our lives, whereas the alternative impoverishes
our lives. Sticking to that isn't easy, but then good things are
rarely easy.

Mick

.429> Reaching for a legislative - and destructive - weapon is to simply
.429> shrug off the personal responsibilities involved in being tolerant
.429> and valuing differences. Those last must be our principles because
.429> they add value to all our lives, whereas the alternative impoverishes
.429> our lives. Sticking to that isn't easy, but then good things are
.429> rarely easy.

Whoa. "Being tolerant and valuing differences"?? Sorry, but
substance abuse hardly belongs in that catagory. What is the
added value to DEC or me if I 'tolerate' or 'value the
difference' of a substance abuser?

Maybe your last raise was an impressive one, but mine wasn't. As
a DEC employee my employer expects me to be looking out for the
companies best interests. If I uncover a case of employee theft
or a security problem the company would expect me to report it.
Performance impaired by substance abuse costs DEC money. And the
less profitable DEC is, the smaller my raise (probably).

In the case of substance abuse I don't advocate reporting other
employees because I feel that if their performance is affected
then it will become known and some help for them can be sought.
Please though, don't ask me to tolerate it or value the
difference of it.

Lee Roth

re -.1

Too bad... better report all those smokers using your smoking rooms.
Statistically, they have a higher likelihood of taking sick days than
non-smokers, & the more sick days they take the less work they'll do,
so the smaller your raise (probably) becomes.

    "OK, HOW CAN YOU TAKE PHILIPS MODEL 3004 FILES AND TRANSFER THEM
     TO YOUR SYSTEM?  THIS MUST BE DONE BY THE VENDOR CHOSEN FOR OUR
     $1.6M WP SYSTEM."
    
    "{Phhhhhhhhhhh...phhhh....phhhhhhhhhhhh} (GULP)..(gulp)
     
    (whoshhhhhhhh..........)
    
    :) :) :0 :) :)  (chough) 
    
     Hey man, no prob!  We'll just suck it in and pump it out!  Heh
     Heh.  WOW. :) :)
    
    Hey did you see that bird, man don't you wish you could fly man?!
    Wow.
                                              
    Sign here man!"
    
    *****************************************>
    I'm always striving to do better.  I feel its my obligation to DEC
    and my self to constantly get better.  If my performance is good
    enough stoned, but could be even better straight, then I feel I'm
    cheating myself and DEC by being stoned.  
    
    With this attitude I find life and work too demanding for drug use.
    Like getting stoned while walking a tightrope, its just not helpful
    
    :)
                 
    To each his/her own
     
    Markos

    I don't think there has yet been a note from anyone who has directly
    been affected by substance abuse.  I'll post one.  This is not an
    arguement for or against drug testing -- only an observation about what
    you do on your own time is your business and whether it does or does
    not affect your work.  And as .432 points out, if you're not at your best, 
    then you're cheating someone.
    
    I had a substance abuser work for me.  There was a slow deteriation in
    his job performance.  No one came and complained to me, in fact, there
    were people who still were happy with his work.  After discussion with
    personnel, I talked with the employee about his job performance.  He
    denied that he had any problems and said it was my problem.  To shorten
    a long story, after verbal and written warnings and on the verge of
    being fired, the employee went to rehab.  He asked me to be part of his
    rehab program which I agreed to.  After about a month out of rehab, the
    employee delibertly set out to break his rehab agreements and lied to
    me about it.  Finally, one fellow employee came to me and said, this guy
    is bragging about how he has tricked you.  Shortly thereafter, while
    impaired, he committed a fireable offense and was terminated by
    personnel.
    
    Now, I tell this story for the following points: a) the employee never
    felt his job performance suffered, b) no fellow employee ever reported
    him except when he bragged about it, c) the cost in time and $ to do
    what was right was high.  (This was not at DEC and this company had no
    drug testing program.)
    
    Some questions come to my mind: would drug testing have gotten him into
    a rehab program quicker, would it have kept him on the rehab program,
    would an early rehab have been of benefit to the employee and the
    company, etc?  There were other employees who showed minor work problems 
    and who were felt to have similar abuse problems, nothing was ever done 
    with them.  Does that mean marginal and/or reduced performance has to be
    tolerated because there is no "evidence"?  One of the things stressed
    to me about abuse during the rehab program is that tolerance is one of
    the worst things you can do.  
    
    Because of my experience (walk a mile in my shoes), I would be in favor 
    of drug testing and would expect DEC to do the right thing if positive 
    results were obtained.  Before my experience, I'd probably be one of 
    the ones who felt my "rights" were being violated.

    Fascinating discussions! In the spirit of 'valueing differences', I'll
    give you what I think would happen in France, and probably elsewhere in
    Europe:

    Company X decides to institute a drug testing program. Employee Y
    immediately sues company X, and wins right away. Company X gets bad
    mouthed all over the place, and makes the news for weeks on all TV and
    Radio channels. CEO is shown the way out.

    And I'm not taking in account countries where some substances are
    perfectly legal (their consumption, that is); like Spain and others. 

    Regards,
    Denis.    

    I think limiting drug testing to employees whose performance is
    deteriorating sounds like a good arrangement in the Digital culture. 
    There's probable cause to look, and the emphasis is on performance, not
    lifestyle.
    
    I wonder, though:  Is it reasonable to wait until the problem manifests
    itself?  If I'm on drugs and I come in to work at odd hours, or stagger
    down the hall, or write notes all on one line so no one can read them,
    that doesn't do irreparable harm to the company or my fellow employees. 
    But what if my first slip-up is crashing a truck into an overpass and
    killing a number of people?  What if my first slip-up is a bug in some
    piece of mission-critical software ("Roger, go at throttle-up" <BOOM>)? 
    What if my first slip-up speeds a commuter train over an embankment? 
    What if my first slip-up sends a supertanker into a reef?  (If
    Joseph Hazelwood gets the blame for the Exxon Valdez disaster, which I
    think would be unfair, it will be written that one man did a billion
    dollars' damage through substance abuse.)  You get the idea.
    
    Drug testing, it can be argued, is the proactive approach.  It has the
    potential to head off problems before they manifest themselves,
    problems which may potentially be destructive and hugely expensive.
    It's a tough call.  I think of my doctor, my childrens' bus driver, the
    guy coming at me on the road, and I wonder sometimes if they're OK or
    not.  Sometimes I think my attitude toward drug testing
    is, "I want all of YOU tested, but keep your hands off my body!"

    re .432 - thanks, Mark Ricciardi, for the NOTES equivalent of a
    Geraldo Rivera 'drug experience'.. really hot stuff.
    
    re .433< Note 716.433 by ATLACT::GIBSON_D >
> .....Before my experience, I'd probably be one of 
>the ones who felt my "rights" were being violated.
    
    I don't put RIGHTS in quotes, as if they're not real, or a figment 
    of overheated imaginations.  I suppose you "voted" in the last
    "election", too ?  I did, but without the quote marks.
    
    karl moeller

    re .435:
    
    > Drug testing, it can be argued, is the proactive approach.  It has the
    > potential to head off problems before they manifest themselves,
    > problems which may potentially be destructive and hugely expensive.
    > It's a tough call.  I think of my doctor, my childrens' bus driver, the
    > guy coming at me on the road, and I wonder sometimes if they're OK or
    > not.  ...
    
    So far, I have read lots of rather hysterical articles about the costs
    of drug abuse to business, but I have yet to see any reasonably well
    documented figures as to the prevalence and costs of illegal drug
    abuse.
    
    Almost every article I have seen starts by discussing SUBSTANCE ABUSE
    and how costly and widespread it is, and then by some strange sleight
    of word winds up talking about drug testing without ever really
    defining how much of substance abuse is illegal drug abuse and how much
    is legal drug (alcohol mainly) abuse.  Funny.  You'd almost think the 
    writers were trying to avoid giving out much data on how much illegal drug
    abuse there really is.  Maybe because it wouldn't be sufficient to back
    up all the hysteria if illegal drug abuse was only a small fraction of
    the cost of substance abuse?  Do any of the passionate arguers for
    testing have some reasonably well backed figures?  (NIH, CDC, Surgeon 
    Generals Reports will happily be accepted - DEA has a track record of 
    fudging and I would consider figures from them somewhat suspect.)
    
    So far, the only figures I have seen are for various causes of death,
    in which illegal drugs are somewhere around 1% as large as the combined
    affects of alcohol and tobacco.  If the secondary affects (health, 
    accidents, etc.) are proportional to the direct mortality affects, then
    testing for illegal drugs will have no noticeable affect on safety
    either in the workplace or on the road.
    
    /Dave

    I notice that the latest issue of DEC's U.S. Field News is chock
    full of 'dangers of drugs in the workplace' articles.  
        
    Kind of an interesting tactic.. stymied by the Bill of Rights, the
    government tries, by selectively withholding contracts, to force
    private industry to implement drug testing.
    
    karl

    Re .430:
    
    > Whoa. "Being tolerant and valuing differences"?? Sorry, but substance
    > abuse hardly belongs in that catagory. What is the added value to DEC 
    > or me if I 'tolerate' or 'value the difference' of a substance abuser? 
    
    It was suggested that you value differences in general, not that you
    value the differences of a substance abuser.
    
    There is value in tolerating and valuing the difference of a substance
    user.  Use is not necessarily abuse.  Some drugs are relatively mild,
    some drugs have only short-term effects.
    
    Value to be gained in toleration is reciprocation -- if you tolerate
    others, they are more likely to tolerate you.  Don't think you have
    anything to tolerate?  Toleration is how we get along in this country
    with widely opposed views on abortion, sexual activities, social
    agendas, political ideas, and so on.  Toleration gives you free speech,
    privacy, and due process.  Take it away from others and it will
    ultimately be taken away from you. 
    
    
    				-- edp 

    To those of you who believe the government is out to protect you,
    I offer the following, relatively famous piece.  I'm sure someone
    will be able to correct it and name the source...
    
        When they came and took away the communists, I was not a 
        communist so I did nothing.  Then they came and took away
        the Jews and I was not a Jew so I did nothing.  They took
        away the Catholics and the intellectuals, and I was neither
        so I did nothing.  When they came to take me away there was
        no-one left to complain.
    
    It refers to the Nazis, and while it may be a poor paraphrase, the
    point is:  If you allow any of 'them' to test you physically for
    things 'they' don't like, please don't come crying to me when you
    disagree with 'their' definitions of 'bad', 'dangerous' or 'harmful'.
    
    
    Don
    

RE: .420

> It is unwise to accuse people with whom you disagree of committing a crime
> in a public notesfile, as is shown in your statement "Burn your brain out 
> on your own time and recover on your own time, but don't waste my mind and 
> time with your foolishness", and probably illegal as well.  It could possibly
> be interpreted as libel, slander, and/or defamation of character by previous
> contributors.

    Some people seem to have a problem with the fact that being accused of
    substance abuse offended Mary.  Well, I also am offended by such an
    accusation, and to be more specific I was highly offended by the note
    saying that anyone opposed to drug testing is a drug abuser.  That
    person was saying that I'm a drug abuser.
    
    I don't use illegal drugs.  I am vehemently opposed to random drug
    testing.
    
    I have never had an abortion.  I am strongly pro-choice.
    
    It is not necessary for something to personally affect me in order for
    me to have strong feelings about it.  Why is such a simple concept so
    hard for some people to understand?

RE: .425
    
    > Re: [.420]:  The reaction against possible drug testing has reached
    > hysterical proportions.  Now it is a crime even to accuse a coworker of
    > being under the influence of drugs.
    
    Did Mary say the accusation is a crime?  I missed that somehow.
    
    > No, not one of the
    > 112,000 employees of Digital Equipment Corporation has ever used drugs
    > on the job, or reported for work under the influence.  No sir.  Don't
    > even think about it.
    
    Mary didn't say that every Digital employee is completely clean.  She
    DID say that everyone opposed to drug testing isn't automatically a
    user.  Do you dispute that?
    
    > I think the conclusion of .420 was beyond the bounds of etiquette for 
    > this Notes file.
    
    You're entitled to your opinion.  I personally think .419 (was that the
    number of the note?) was beyond the bounds of etiquette for this Notes
    file.  I'm also entitled to my opinion.
    
    RE: .434
    
    > Fascinating discussions! In the spirit of 'valueing differences', I'll
    > give you what I think would happen in France, and probably elsewhere in
    > Europe:

    > Company X decides to institute a drug testing program. Employee Y
    > immediately sues company X, and wins right away. Company X gets bad
    > mouthed all over the place, and makes the news for weeks on all TV and
    > Radio channels. CEO is shown the way out.
    
    Don't be too sure.  If someone had asked me a year ago, I'd have told
    them the exact same thing would happen in the U.S.  It hasn't.
    
    							Pat

    To those who favor drug-testing: 
    
    I view random drug testing as an invasion of privacy and unreasonable
    search and seizure.  The previous paraphase on the situation with the
    Nazis was pretty apt.  One should not let one's civil rights be easily
    taken away - even if the methods don't "apply" to you right now.
    
    Maybe you don't mind peeing in a bottle, because it helps us battle
    "drugs in the workplace".  Maybe you won't mind random strip-searches 
    either, with all bodily orifices being carefully probed, to make sure 
    that you aren't hiding illegal drugs.  After all, we have a "war on 
    drugs" going on, and people who use illegal drugs should be rooted out
    by any means necessary.
    
    Keep an eye on your civil rights now folks before they slip away little 
    by little.  
    
    The stated party line at Digital at this point is fairly reasonable -
    address performance problems as performance problems; take action on
    (possibly terminating) any employee found with alcohol or controlled 
    substances on Digital property or customer property; and refer employee 
    with emotional or substance-abuse problems to the Employee Assistance 
    Program where they can get help.  However, Digital is receiving a lot
    of pressure from the government and customers who are succumbing to the
    general hysteria.
    
    I was not comforted by the fact that the long-awaited "US Field News"
    issue on the subject dwelt entirely on substance-abuse problems in the 
    workplace with nearly nothing on Digital's position on testing.  It 
    gives me the sinking feeling that Digital may be weakening in its 
    current stance due to increased outside pressures.
    
    Remember - "Just Say No" to drug testing.
    
    - Dave

                     -< Some Devil's advocacy of testing >-
    			     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    It's a tough call.  I think of my doctor, my childrens' bus driver, the
>    guy coming at me on the road, and I wonder sometimes if they're OK or
>    not.  Sometimes I think my attitude toward drug testing
>    is, "I want all of YOU tested, but keep your hands off MY body!"
    	  ----------------------------------------------------------
    
    You can afford to be brutally honest since you are playing Devil's
    advocate.  However, if one were to actually sum up the attitude of many
    people, your summary would be quite close.
    
    - Vikas

> < Note 716.435 by LEAF::JONG "Steve Jong/NaC Pubs" >
>                     -< Some Devil's advocacy of testing >-
>
>    I think limiting drug testing to employees whose performance is
>    deteriorating sounds like a good arrangement in the Digital culture. 
>    There's probable cause to look, and the emphasis is on performance, not
>    lifestyle.

"Deteriorating performance" is probable cause?  Deteriorating performance 
followed by consultation with the "offender" and the presence of corroborating
evidence perhaps, but this level of blanket authorization is no protection 
at all!
    
>    But what if my first slip-up is crashing a truck into an overpass and
>    killing a number of people?  What if my first slip-up is a bug in some
>    piece of mission-critical software ("Roger, go at throttle-up" <BOOM>)? 
>    What if my first slip-up speeds a commuter train over an embankment? 
>    What if my first slip-up sends a supertanker into a reef?  

By this argumentation we'd all be under house arrest all the time.
Maybe everybody should be tested for allergies, so only people not likely
to go into sneezing fits that would cause them to swerve their cars into
crowds of children waiting for school buses would be allowed to drive?
    
>    Drug testing, it can be argued, is the proactive approach.  

It's also invasive, patronizing, demeaning, shows a lack of trust.

>    It has the potential to head off problems before they manifest themselves

So does house arrest.

>    It's a tough call.  

Not to me it isn't.....  As things stand, I'll take my chances with personal
liberty.  I want to keep mine, so I'll let them keep theirs.

>    I think of my doctor, my childrens' bus driver, the
>    guy coming at me on the road, and I wonder sometimes if they're OK or
>    Sometimes I think my attitude toward drug testing
>    is, "I want all of YOU tested, but keep your hands off my body!"

Alas, too many people feel this way, and I commend you for stating it.
(Whether you mean it or not, or whether you said it for dramatic effect or not,
it's a statement that needed to be brought to people's attention.)
"Hey, *>I<* don't have a problem!  Why would you want to test me?"

The anecdotes seem to indicate that substance abusers have a record of
not admitting to a problem.  That is not sufficient justification for
dragging all of us through the evidence gathering process to try to flush
them out.

- tom]

    
>        When they came and took away the communists, I was not a 
>        communist so I did nothing.  Then they came and took away
>        the Jews and I was not a Jew so I did nothing.  They took
>        away the Catholics and the intellectuals, and I was neither
>        so I did nothing.  When they came to take me away there was
>        no-one left to complain.

	Father Martin Niemoller, German Protestant pastor, who was 
	sent to the concentration camps when he kicked back against
	mistreatment of Protestants.  Crude summary.

	By the way, the largest protests against Nazi euthanasia came
	when the Nazis started rounding up the mentally and physically
	disabled. 

Note 716.425                
LEAF::JONG 

>    Re: [.420]:  The reaction against possible drug testing has reached
>    hysterical proportions.  Now it is a crime even to accuse a coworker of
>    being under the influence of drugs.  

The reaction against possible drug use has reached hysterical proportions as
well.  Such an unproven accusation can cost a man his job, his reputation, and 
his future.  To accuse anyone of a crime in such a manner is by definition 
against the law.  

Libel:  A written, printed, or pictorial statement that unjustly damages a
person's reputation.

Slander:  The utterance of defamatory statements injurious to the reputation
or well-being of a person.

Defamation:  To attack the good name of another by slander or libel.

It is one thing to express one's opinion and quite another to suggest or
imply that those who have a different opinion have it because they are 
guilty of a crime, especially when done in public and in writing.  If you 
don't believe me, then ask your lawyer.  Business Week has an interesting 
article regarding the tremendous rise in employee/employer lawsuits that are 
proliferating today and that are directly related to drug testing and related 
accusations.

We all know that at different times there have been people who have stolen 
from the company.  Does that justify conducting random searches of our homes?
Are we silly or hysterical to resent suggestions of such policy?

We all know that at different times during an employee's life, he or she
may suffer from depression due to family problems, divorce or whatever.  
Depression certainly affects one's work.  Does that justify conducting random 
and obligatory psychiatric testing of all of us?  Would we be hysterical and
childish to resent such policy?

Personality conflicts, stress, and other symptoms of the modern human 
condition can cause problems at work.  That is part of being human.
Men and women are not disposable pieces of plastic that exist to serve the 
machine of society and business.  Management and government cannot
legislate away the human condition, threaten away the human condition or
program away the human condition.  If business and government cannot deal
with the nature of humanity then it is they who must change, who must adapt.
The dignity and self-respect of the whole is more important than the policing
of the few.  I submit that physical testing of our bodily fluids is intrusive,
unnecessary to our safety and happiness, and an indication of the despotism 
at work in our country today.  Therefore we, as Americans, have a sacred duty
to resist such attempts, even if we place our own personal self interest at 
risk in so doing.  We owe it to our children and to the future to preserve
our precious freedom and privacy and to protect the dignity and well-being
of the individual.  There is no greater threat than the threat to freedom.


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed,  That whenever any Form of Government becomes 
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness.  Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient
causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more
disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future security.-
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection
of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives our Fortunes
and our sacred Honor.

Mary Stanley

    Magnificent words!  But they were not written to protect the Colombian 
    drug cartels.

    Many of the recent polemics in this topic have absolutely nothing
    to do with drug testing and Digital.
    
    Digital is bound to abide by the law, whether ill-conceived or not.
    How Digital exercises whatever discretion it has when responding to
    government policies is a valid topic for conversation here.
    
    Discussions addressing the broader topic of whether or not such 
    policies are of value to society belong elsewhere.
    
    Al
    

Note 716.435                
LEAF::JONG 

>    But what if my first slip-up is crashing a truck into an overpass and
>    killing a number of people?  What if my first slip-up is a bug in some
>    piece of mission-critical software ("Roger, go at throttle-up" <BOOM>)? 
>    What if my first slip-up speeds a commuter train over an embankment? 
>    What if my first slip-up sends a supertanker into a reef?  (If
>    Joseph Hazelwood gets the blame for the Exxon Valdez disaster, which I
>    think would be unfair, it will be written that one man did a billion
>    dollars' damage through substance abuse.)  You get the idea.

What if Joe Hazelwood and substance abuse is a convenient excuse for Exxon
to blame?   Exxon could have designed it's ships with double hulls but that
would have cost money.  What if Exxon fudged on the design to increase it's
profit margin and then conveniently blamed the captain and substance abuse
when the inevitable happened?  Exxon dismantled the division trained to deal 
with oil spills, thats how much concern they had for a possible spill.  
Substance abuse and the individual can be blamed regardless of what other 
factors may have been at cause.

What if a first slip-up is caused by incompetence or stupidity?  What if it
is the result of mental illness?  What if it is caused by human error?
There are no guarantees in this life.  We depend on each other to do the 
right thing.  That is a judgment call that each of us may interpret 
differently.  Life carries certain risks.  From the time we draw that first
breath we are at risk, that is the nature of life.  The safe approach to life
is not always the right approach.  There is no protection from the uncertainty 
of life.

>    I think limiting drug testing to employees whose performance is
>    deteriorating sounds like a good arrangement in the Digital culture. 

Performance is a judgment call that is largely determined by the personality 
and opinion of the judge.  Poor performance can indicate; a personality clash, 
personal problems at home, a health problem, a lack of training, an emotional
problem, a mismatch between individual and position, and many, many more.

The treatment we allow for the least of us (the most vulnerable) sets the 
standard for all of us.  And who among us hasn't had a problem at one time
or another?  

>    Drug testing, it can be argued, is the proactive approach.  It has the
>    potential to head off problems before they manifest themselves,
>    problems which may potentially be destructive and hugely expensive.

Problems that are unmanifested are not problems at all.  Further, some things
are more important than money; freedom and human dignity are among them.

Drug testing is also a way for institutions to blame individuals when
problems arise, to hold individuals responsible for destruction that may
occur regardless of it's actual cause and contributing factors.  
It is a dangerous precedent and not one that the American people can accept.

    re: .449
    > Digital is bound to abide by the law, whether ill_conceived or
    > not.

    There is no law requiring drug testing.  It is a requirement to
    bid for certain government contracts, nothing more.  If a new law
    has been passed that I don't know about, please post it here.
    
    Mary                                                         

    Re: [450]:
    
    >> What if Joe Hazelwood and substance abuse is a convenient excuse for
    >> Exxon to blame? ... Substance abuse and the individual can be blamed
    >> regardless of what other factors may have been at cause.
    
    Mary, I agree with you completely.  What do you think Digital is trying
    to cover up by drug testing?
    
    >>                                   We depend on each other to do the
    >> right thing.  That is a judgment call that each of us may interpret
    >> differently.
    
    Unfortunately, some small fraction of the population, through illness,
    arrogance, or bad judgement, does the wrong thing.  What can we do
    about it?  Nothing?
    
    >> Drug testing is also a way for institutions to blame individuals
    >> when problems arise, to hold individuals responsible for destruction that
    >> may occur regardless of it's actual cause and contributing factors.
    
    Drug users as scapegoats?  If you substituted the word "Breathalyzer"
    for "drug," do you think anyone would agree with you?  Would you agree
    youself?
    
    * * * * *
    
    I wanted to make a brief comment on a different reply in this topic
    (not authored by Mary), which said, "There was no drug problem in this
    country until Congress declared there was."  I think that is the
    most preposterous thing I've heard all year.  Any black leader will
    tell you drugs are the TOP problem facing blacks in this country
    today--even over poverty and racism.  Are you suggesting that the most
    serious problem facing blacks is not, on the whole, a problem at all?

re: .450

The fact that life is full of inherent risks does not mean we should ignore
factors that increase that risk.  Just because anybody could swerve into my
lane and cause a head-on does not mean we should tolerate drunk drivers...

/mike

  
   > Drug users as scapegoats?  If you substituted the word "Breathalyzer"
   > for "drug," do you think anyone would agree with you?  Would you agree
   > youself?
   
In an heroic attempt to force the topic back to "drug testing at DEC",
I'll answer that one a little bit out of context.

YES.

If someone was proposing that I get breathalyzed at work, I'd be every
bit as pissed off as I am now pissed off over the idea of mandatory
drug testing.

re: .several by Mary HKFINN::Stanley

   Nice words, Mary. You sum up my views on the subject quite concisely.

   I've been following this discussion for as long as it's been going
   on and I've been _amazed_ at the tangents and ratholes that have been
   pursued. People! Stop for just one moment! Think about the issue here!

   FORGET about how you feel about substance abuse, the effects on
   our business, and congress' ability to succeed or fail in a war 
   against drugs! Those things ARE NOT the issue here! The issue is
   whether or not drug testing is reasonable at DEC. It would appear
   to me that many well stated cases have been made to support the
   opinion that it is NOT reasonable, that it is counter-culture, and
   that it has absolutely nothing to do with dealing with issues
   which are manifest by performance problems (which IS what we need
   to be concerned about from a business standpoint.) The other thing
   we need to be concerned about from a business standpoint, obviously,
   is how we think our profit picture will be affected by our stance
   on this issue (i.e. will we lose big on govt. contracts if we say
   NO to drug testing?).

   Personally, I'm strongly opposed to drug testing for all of the
   reasons that have been stated herein. From a business standpoint,
   I would prefer that DEC and other companies offer the govt. some
   alternative plans to satisfying their "requirement" of a drug-free
   workplace, rather than agreeing to mandatory (even limited) testing.

   Now, does anyone have any creative suggestions as to how that could
   be proposed to Uncle Sam? To be perfectly honest, I don't think he
   wants to kiss all his VAXen goodbye, anyway!

   -Jack

    re: .450
    
    I did not say anything about a law requiring drug testing; that
    much is obvious from even a cursory inspection of my reply.
    
    What I did say is that Digital must abide by the law.  That may
    include drug testing under limited circumstances, though it appears
    that Digital has some latitude in complying with the order.
    Nevertheless, discussions regarding Digitals response to this change
    in requirements or Digitals substance related policies are quite
    relevant to the topic.
    
    On the other hand, the merits of mandatory drug testing, the effects
    on society, the existence of a real or perceived problem, individual
    rights, whether the law is misguided and the Exxon Valdez are topics 
    better left to other forums. At least that's my opinion, though the 
    moderators of this conference may have other ideas.
    
                               *    *    *       
    
    To start a slightly different twist to the discussion, let me pose
    a hypothetical scenario:
    
    Digital is awarded a service contract which requires substance 
    screening of the individual responsible for servicing the account.
    Suppose that I'm Mr. Field Service Manager (actually, Customer 
    Service now...) and I have a small unit with only one person qualified 
    to perform the required work.  Presume also that training someone else
    or transferring somebody is not an option.  The person I have
    designated to do the job refuses to submit to the testing process.
    
    The question: Is the employee a performance problem, and if not,
    why?
    
    Al
    

    Re: 716.454: suggestions on what Digital might do...
    
    Nice idea.  How about this one: Compliance with this government
    regulation implies testing employees who might be directly involved
    with delivering government contracts (presumably, mostly DoD work).
    
    I, for one, do not ever wish to work with the U.S. government, and
    especially the DoD - never have, never will.  Digital should allow
    employees to specify with impunity that they do not ever wish to be
    involved with delivery of a U.S. government project, and therefore are
    exempt from drug testing.  I'll be at the head of that line.
    
    Frankly, when it comes to working with DoD, I already 'Just say no'.
    
    P.S. Mary, thank you for the Declaration of Independence.  I can't
    think of a better place for it than here.  I hope our pro-testing (no
    pun intended) colleagues out there were paying attention when that went
    by.
    

    
>   Digital is awarded a service contract which requires substance 
>   screening of the individual responsible for servicing the account.
>   Suppose that I'm Mr. Field Service Manager (actually, Customer 
>   Service now...) and I have a small unit with only one person qualified 
>   to perform the required work.  Presume also that training someone else
>   or transferring somebody is not an option.  The person I have
>   designated to do the job refuses to submit to the testing process.
>   
>   The question: Is the employee a performance problem, and if not,
>   why?
    
    As a manager, you cannot _compel_ a subordinate to take a drug test.
    You can ask the employee to take a test, but that test is between
    them and their prospective (temporary) employer. Your employee can
    "just say no." Between a rock and a hard place? That's why you're
    Mr. (whatever) Manager -- it's _your_ problem to solve.

    /Petes 
    

re: -.2    

>    Frankly, when it comes to working with DoD, I already 'Just say no'.
    
Hmmm...  I wonder why...  I would assume that we sell a substantial number of
computers and services if not directly to the government (which I would guess
we do) then certainly to businesses involved in defense work. (please correct
me if this is inaccurate)

If you have a problem with dealing with the bureaucracy and BS issues like drug
testing then you are justified, but if you are operating from the belief that
we have nothing to do with the defense industry, I would reexamine that belief.

    re: .455
    
    In general, I agree with Petes in .457.  The scenario is unreasonable,
    because of the assumption that bringing in someone else is not
    permitted.  Suppose your only qualified employee dies?  Is bringing in
    someone else still not permitted?
    
    If I were a manager who inherited a situation in which only a single
    employee was qualified to deliver a service to a customer, the first
    thing I would do is find a backup delivery person.  (Actually, the
    _first_ thing I would do is inform the customer about the situation,
    so if the employee gets sick the customer will have been prepared for
    the temporary interruption of service.  _Then_ I'd look for a backup.)
    
    If I were a manager who encountered the situation described in .455,
    I would tell the customer that I am sorry, but Digital is unable to
    deliver the service.  This might require that Digital pay penalties,
    and would certainly involve loss of face.  Then I would go have a talk
    with the salesperson who sold the service without first determining
    that we had the resources necessary to deliver it.  Depending on the
    situation I would probably also have a talk with his manager.  The
    purpose of these talks would be to insure that the problem did not
    happen again.
    
    I am not very familiar with field procedures, so the previous paragraph
    may not correspond to the way things are actually done in the real
    world.  My intent is to say that the service should not have been sold
    without first making sure that we had someone who was willing and able
    to deliver the service, including submitting to drug testing if that
    is part of the requirements.  To sell a service which we cannot deliver
    (for any reason) is an error on the part of the salesperson.
        John Sauter
                                        

    On a lighter note, .... according to this week's Newsweek, drug tests
    can't differentiate between Diet Mountain Dew and urine.  They have the
    same pH and density.  FWIW, you probably should let it go flat and warm 
    it under your arm as well.

    There is no such thing as a service which we are unable to deliver.
    If it's in the price book, it can be sold.  It is the delivery
    organizations responsibility to find a way to satisfy the need.
    Sales people don't negotiate terms and conditions; the delivery
    organizations do.  That is not the issue at hand, however.
    
    If any employee can refuse to submit to testing, then it is entirely 
    possible that we will be placed into intolerable business situations.
    The corporation has not yet said that it will refuse to enter into 
    government contracts which contain the objectionable clause, so
    I must assume that Digitals intent is to deliver such services.
    This is clearly at odds with the choice of any single employee.
    
    It's a cop out to simply say "that's the managers problem" and handcuff
    him at the same time. Managers are expected to use the resources
    allocated to them to acheive the business goals established for
    them.  If the corporation is really willing give individual employees
    the authority to decide whether or not to accept work assignments 
    (and that is really the underlying question here), than it must adopt 
    a formal method of forgiving business goals which go unmet as a result.
    
    I don't believe that Digital has made any such commitment at this
    time.
    
    Al
    

RE:      <<< Note 716.461 by HOCUS::KOZAKIEWICZ "Shoes for industry" >>>

    > There is no such thing as a service which we are unable to deliver.
    > If it's in the price book, it can be sold.  It is the delivery
    > organizations responsibility to find a way to satisfy the need.
    > Sales people don't negotiate terms and conditions; the delivery
    > organizations do.  That is not the issue at hand, however.
    
    Right.  It is (and never has been, at least in my 11+ year experience)
    the Sales organization's responsibility to inventory our people and
    their skill sets before selling a service.  It is the delivery
    manager's job to ensure that we have adequate resources and people
    available to provide the customer with what was sold.  That's what
    delivery managers get paid for.
    
    As far as employees refusing drug testing, how is that different from
    an employee who states that s/he will not work, for example, on a
    computer system that will {operate/guide/monitor} an offensive weapon
    that could/will kill people?  Our employees are allowed to do that, and
    are not required to work on such a system if they object.  We have also
    asked many employees to apply for government clearances.  The employee
    has the right to refuse to apply for such a clearance, and in such
    cases, is simply assigned to work that does not require a clearance.
    
    Regarding the scenario where there was only one qualified individual
    available to do a job requiring drug testing, and that employee refused
    to be tested:  I believe it should be his/her right to refuse.  The
    manager should treat the situation exactly as s/he would treat it if
    s/he had *zero* people qualified to do the job.  As a SWS manager, I
    found myself with the latter problem many, many times.  A manager who
    can't handle such a situation, even in the midst of a hiring freeze,
    won't last very long at Digital, at least not in management.  You (a)
    train someone, (b) find someone at another office to do the job, or (c)
    hire someone.
    
    > If any employee can refuse to submit to testing, then it is entirely 
    > possible that we will be placed into intolerable business situations.
    
    If, as I would like to see, almost *every* employee refuses to be
    tested, then you are correct.  As far as I am concerned, that would be
    the most expedient and desirable solution for this entire mess.
    
    > It's a cop out to simply say "that's the managers problem" and handcuff
    > him at the same time. Managers are expected to use the resources
    > allocated to them to acheive the business goals established for
    > them.
    
    Managers are also expected to value differences and respect the
    individual, whether that individual objects to building offensive
    weapons, applying for a government clearance, or being subjected to an
    unconstitutional search.  We expect that of our managers today, and we
    expected it of them ten years ago.  It hasn't changed.
    
    > If the corporation is really willing give individual employees
    > the authority to decide whether or not to accept work assignments 
    > (and that is really the underlying question here), than it must adopt 
    > a formal method of forgiving business goals which go unmet as a result.
    
    The word "if" in the above paragraph is extraneous; we already
    willingly give individual employees the authority to decide whether or
    not to accept work assignments in situations like I have cited above. 
    It is management's responsibility to meet business goals, *without*
    sacrificing Digital's policies of valuing differences and respecting
    our employees' beliefs and value systems.  That's why they pay managers
    the big bucks!  (^;
    
    							Pat

re .461
 
>   There is no such thing as a service which we are unable to deliver.
>   If it's in the price book, it can be sold.  It is the delivery
>   organizations responsibility to find a way to satisfy the need.
>   Sales people don't negotiate terms and conditions; the delivery
>   organizations do.  That is not the issue at hand, however.

Agreed, mostly. This, of course, is the first rathole of services delivery. A
competent salesperson will have been in contact with the delivery manager, if
only to find out the best way to position and sell the service. The delivery
organization's being responsible for delivery does not release sales from their
obligation to be responsible preofessionals.
    
>   If any employee can refuse to submit to testing, then it is entirely 
>   possible that we will be placed into intolerable business situations.
>   The corporation has not yet said that it will refuse to enter into 
>   government contracts which contain the objectionable clause, so
>   I must assume that Digitals intent is to deliver such services.
>   This is clearly at odds with the choice of any single employee.

>   It's a cop out to simply say "that's the managers problem" and handcuff
>   him at the same time. Managers are expected to use the resources
>   allocated to them to acheive the business goals established for
>   them.  If the corporation is really willing give individual employees
>   the authority to decide whether or not to accept work assignments 
>   (and that is really the underlying question here), than it must adopt 
>   a formal method of forgiving business goals which go unmet as a result.

Either drug testing is mandatory at Digital, or it isn't. Right now, it isn't.
We, Digital, can enter into a contract, but, guess what? It's a manager who
signs the contract and obligates Digital to deliver. (That's, in fact, why
non-managers cannot sign contracts.)

If a manager knows a drug test is going to be required of one of our employees,
then he or she better prepare for it. Frankly, in most cases, employees will be
"reasonable" and submit to the test, even if they don't like the idea.

If a manager does business in accounts with which Digital has signed a contract
agreeing to drug testing then it's up to them to work with their employees to
find them alternate assignments or a transfer opportunity, and to set the
expectation of any potential member of the unit that they will have to take drug
tests at the customer.

Note, however, that a customer _normally_ requiring drug tests and signing a
contract _not_ requiring drug tests are _not_ mutually exclusive.

I was a PSS (Software Services Delivery) manager for 2 years. What I was talking
about wasn't a cop-out. "I was there." If you had business goals to achieve
without any handcuffs, and "forgiveness" when things went wrong, it wouldn't be
much of a management position.

You know, as a manager I was rather _proud_ of Digital, that

   -	I could ask someone, nicely, to submit to a drug test, but 
	couldn't _force_ them to. 
or
   -    I could look a customer straight in the eye and say "No, Digital
	does not perform drug testing of its employees"

/Peters

    

    First of all, I want to reiterate (assuming that I 'iterated' once
    before...) that I'm no fan of drug testing.  What I am especially
    interested in (and what I believe is appropriate to the topic) are
    the effects on how we do business.  With that in mind...
    
    re: .462
    
    My understanding of employee refusal to accept certain assignments
    or submit to DoD or DoE clearance procedures is that tolerance,
    if any, is at the discretion of the manager.  I'm certainly not
    aware of any formal policy which deals with this - are you?  I'd
    be very interested in knowing.  I think that this is a key concept
    in dealing with the issue.
    
    re: .463
    
    Managers should prepare and employees will probably be reasonable;
    I'd certainly agree with you there.  What I'm really interested
    in, however, is exploring the limits of the manager's and employee's 
    obligations to the corporation and to each other.
    
    I think there is an interesting parallel between drug testing and
    security clearances.  Let me put up a straw man.  I've not had to face 
    the drug testing clause and hopefully never will.  I do have to face 
    the security clearance issue because of our customer base.  It's not
    been a problem yet, but I've wondered what I would do if faced with an 
    employee who refused to submit to the background check.  The realities 
    are that it could cause a significant business problem.  I would feel
    obligated to attribute that to the employee and his/her PA would
    be affected, to a degree at least commensurate with the problems
    caused.
    
    On the other hand, I would be far less willing to attribute the
    problem directly to the employee if they submitted to the background
    check but were denied a clearance.
    
    At any rate, that's about as far as the evolution in my own thought
    process has progressed. I'd be interested in hearing other ideas.
    
    Al
    

    re .464
    
>   My understanding of employee refusal to accept certain assignments
>   or submit to DoD or DoE clearance procedures is that tolerance,
>   if any, is at the discretion of the manager.  I'm certainly not
>   aware of any formal policy which deals with this - are you?  I'd
>   be very interested in knowing.  I think that this is a key concept
>   in dealing with the issue.

    Worded a different way, there is no official policy which requires
    employees to submit to drug testing or security clearance checking.

>   Managers should prepare and employees will probably be reasonable;
>   I'd certainly agree with you there.  What I'm really interested
>   in, however, is exploring the limits of the manager's and employee's 
>   obligations to the corporation and to each other.

    At the limits, things break down. I think the issue here is "temperance"
    on the parts of employer, employee, and customer. Again, strictly
    speaking, the employee has the final say where drug testing is concerened.
    security clearance checks
   
>   I think there is an interesting parallel between drug testing and
>   security clearances.  Let me put up a straw man.  I've not had to face 
>   the drug testing clause and hopefully never will.  I do have to face 
>   the security clearance issue because of our customer base.  It's not
>   been a problem yet, but I've wondered what I would do if faced with an 
>   employee who refused to submit to the background check.  The realities 
>   are that it could cause a significant business problem.  I would feel
>   obligated to attribute that to the employee and his/her PA would
>   be affected, to a degree at least commensurate with the problems
>   caused.

    Someone who worked for me went through a sercurity clearance check (not
    for Digital). I'm not sure I would want to go through the same
    experience. Basically, they get your entire life's story from birth
    (like, they go back and interview teachers you had in school when you
    were "growing up.") There is no respect for privacy, understandably.

    As to the "business problem" caused by refusal to submit, you have hit
    the nail on the head. It is a _BUSINESS_ problem, not an _EMPLOYEE_
    problem. It you can't keep the two separated, then you will have great
    difficulties being an effective manager.
   
>   On the other hand, I would be far less willing to attribute the
>   problem directly to the employee if they submitted to the background
>   check but were denied a clearance.

    This is, of course, personal judgement on priorities. I would add that
    in some cases, if people fail clearance or security checks, we are
    informed of what the issue is. If a check turns up, for example, that
    our employee sold Digital confidential information to a competitor, they
    would be dismissed from Digital. (So submitting is worse than not
    submitting.)

    /Peters

    < Note 716.465 by SVBEV::VECRUMBA "Infinitely deep bag of tricks" >


>    Again, strictly
>    speaking, the employee has the final say where drug testing is concerened.
>    security clearance checks
    
    I don't deny that - no one may be physically compelled to submit
    to any of these processes.  The security policy in particular states
    that signing the authorization to conduct a background check is
    voluntary.  What isn't addressed by policy (or even by guideline
    as near as I can determine) is whether the right to refuse includes
    an explicit or implicit guarantee that it can be done with impunity.
   
>    As to the "business problem" caused by refusal to submit, you have hit
>    the nail on the head. It is a _BUSINESS_ problem, not an _EMPLOYEE_
>    problem. It you can't keep the two separated, then you will have great
>    difficulties being an effective manager.
    
    I have to disagree with you here.  The business problem is caused
    in this instance by the employee, not the manager, not Digital,
    not the customer.  What is the extent of the employees obligation
    to Digital and vice versa?
        
    Managers don't have tolerance on their goalsheets, and Digital hasn't
    given employees veto power over assignments.  This means that each
    situation that arises will likely be handled differently; my worry
    is that identical situations will not be handled the same by different
    managers.  
    
    Al

Al, the problem is not an employee problem - it is a problem with a number
of causes, only one if which is the employee's refusal to submit to a drug
test.  If we agree that the employee has the right to refuse a drug test,
then the problem is not an employee problem (and corporate policy should state
that the employee has the right to refuse a drug test with no punitive
action to be taken). In this case, the problem is a business problem because
no employee should be required to give up his rights in order to further
Digital's business goals.

If, on the other hand, we decide that drug testing may not be refused by
employees, then this too should be stated explicitly and the employee's
refusal to submit is an employee problem.  However, mandatory drug testing
will result in some employees leaving and may result in a suit. And, IMHO,
it would deserve to lose.

Drug testing the way the government has been pushing it sounds to me too
much like the loyalty oaths required in the 50's (if you wouldn't sign, you
had to be a commie, because no one but a commie would have anything to
hide).

    < Note 716.467 by HPSRAD::KIRK "Matt Kirk -- 297-6370" >


>Al, the problem is not an employee problem - it is a problem with a number
>of causes, only one if which is the employee's refusal to submit to a drug
>test.  If we agree that the employee has the right to refuse a drug test,
>then the problem is not an employee problem (and corporate policy should state
>that the employee has the right to refuse a drug test with no punitive
>action to be taken). In this case, the problem is a business problem because
>no employee should be required to give up his rights in order to further
>Digital's business goals.
    
    I think that's what I said, only with respect to background checks.
    What the employee has a right to refuse is somewhat a specious
    statement, since an employee can refuse to do anything he or she
    wants to.  That refusal, however, may or may not have a cost associated
    with it.  Without clear guidelines regarding the consequences of
    such refusal, the area between insubordination and acceptable behavior 
    will be indistinct at best.
    
    Stated another way, it is clear what the civil rights of an employee
    are.  It is unclear to what extent Digital must accommodate the
    exercise of those rights.
    
    Al

Has anything much new been said in this note since, say, .100?

- g

    re .466, .467...

    I think we all agree that:

	There is no explicit policy covering those cases where Digital
	enters into contract with a customer, agrees to have its employees
	submit to security checks or drug tests, and the "scheduled"
	employee declines. That is, there is no explicit impunity.

    I think we all also agree that:

	Whether declining to submit is a "business" or "employee" problem
	depends on the "rules." I personally believe that the current rules
	(or lack thereof) make it a business problem lock stock and barrel.

    And finally,

	[In the absence of clear rules, given the increased likelihood of
	entering into contract requiring drug tests, clearance, checks,
>	etc.,] This means that each situation that arises will likely be
>	handled differently; my worry is that identical situations will not
>	be handled the same by different managers.  
    
    There really isn;t much more to say about this until some more formal
    policies, or at least guidelines, are stated.

    /Peters

    Re:
    
> Has anything much new been said in this note since, say, .100?

    OK I'll ask something new. Has any Digital employee been asked to take
    a drug test yet? If you've been asked to take a drug test perhaps
    you'll share with us what you did, did you refuse? If so what happened?
    Also does anybody know of any Digital employee that has been asked by
    Digital to take a drug test?
    
    Let's get down to the real issues.
    I remember the memo that came round saying that all Frequent Flier
    miles should be given back to Digital. From what I understand Digital
    didn't want its FF miles back, and no doubt didn't have the admin
    necessary to handle it anyway, apparently the memo was strictly
    something to satisfy some tax regulation. Maybe this drug policy
    is just another empty memo. The only way we'll know is to know whether
    anybody is actually being asked to be drug tested.
    
    Dave

    Talking about managers and drug testing, did anyone notice that when it
    comes to the testing part of it, managers themselves probably would
    NEVER be tested?
    
    Frankly, Al, if you are not personally willing to fill the bottle as
    the manager of an employee, your insistence that your subordinate
    should submit to the humiliation is extremely offensive.
    
    - Vikas

    < Note 716.472 by SCAM::GRADY "tim grady" >
    
    >Isn't that the idea behind 'valuing differences', 
    
    No, it's not.  Valuing differences refers to race, color, sex,
    religion, age, national origin, citizenship or veteran status, sexual
    orientation, or handicap.
    
    Although respecting political beliefs (or any beliefs, for that
    matter) is in keeping with this philosophy, it in no way obligates
    Digital to act as a facilitator for anyone's political or religious
    agenda.
    
    Al

re: .471

I don't think the memo on Digital providing a drug free environment is an empty
one.  Basically it stated that employees found with drugs on the premises will
be dealt with through the standard disciplinary process.  People who have 
performance problems (that may be drug related) will be dealt with through the
corrective action process.  Go offer some drugs to your local security people
and you will find out how empty that memo is!

As far as frequent flier miles, I agree that DEC can't administrate them.  But,
before frequent flier miles were around, when United ( and probably others) were
handing out coupons for a discount on a subsequent flight, I was asked by the
group secretary to turn in a coupon when I returned from a business trip.  I
didn't think DEC would bother.  No, I don't think that the secretary was 
collecting the coupons for personal use.

        re 
        
         <<< Note 716.475 by HOCUS::KOZAKIEWICZ "Shoes for industry" >>>

>    >Isn't that the idea behind 'valuing differences', 
>    
>    No, it's not.  Valuing differences refers to race, color, sex,
>    religion, age, national origin, citizenship or veteran status, sexual
>    orientation, or handicap.
        
	Personally, I would classify significant drug use as a handicap...
        
        And, I must agree with the recent comment, that people will demand
        that their babysitters, and childrens teachers etc be drug tested
        etc, but refuse it themselves. If it would do anything to stop
        drug abuse in the community (digital or otherwise), I would submit
        to testing without any qualms. Although, I do feel that doing it
        as a Government requirement is a bit much. IF Digital wan'ts to
        eradicate drug abuse in its workforce, then it should be because
        the Company cares for our well being rather than to plases a
        customer.
        
        q
            
        

    re .473
    
    Drug testing would be an extraordinary change in the working
    environment.  I'd be first in line, even though I probably needn't
    submit.  
        
    BTW, I find the use of the word 'subordinate' to denote individual
    contributor somewhat inappropriate.
    
    Al
    

    > I'd be first in line, even though I probably needn't submit.
    
    First a question:  why would you "probably needn't submit"?
    
    Second, a comment:  as long as I'm not expected to be in line behind
    you, I have no problem whatsoever with your willingness to submit to
    drug testing or anything else.
    
    							Pat

re: Note 716.475 by HOCUS::KOZAKIEWICZ

>    >Isn't that the idea behind 'valuing differences', 
>    
>    No, it's not.  Valuing differences refers to race, color, sex,
>    religion, age, national origin, citizenship or veteran status, sexual
>    orientation, or handicap.
    
     . . . or socio-economic background, or geographic origin within a given
     country, or educational experience, or . . . C'mon Al, it doesn't
     stop at just the things you mentioned. Valuing differences includes
     _ALL_ of the areas in which we differ - even down to weight! At least
     that's the gist of what I learned in DEC workshops on Valuing Differences
     that I've attended.

re: Note 716.476 by CSSE32::RHINE

>    Basically it stated that employees found with drugs on the premises will
> be dealt with through the standard disciplinary process.  People who have 
> performance problems (that may be drug related) will be dealt with through the
> corrective action process.

     But when you come right down to it, Jack, none of this was really new.
     Both of these points seemed perfectly reasonable to me based on the
     employee agreement I signed, and the company philosophy I read when I
     joined DEC over 11 years ago. The testing aspect was in no way, shape,
     or form ever alluded to. It may be that portion which lacks teeth.

     -Jack

    It sounds to me like people aren't listening, or at least they are
    only hearing what they want to.
    
    re: .479
    
    Whether or not I would pee in a bottle has nothing to do with my
    own beliefs on the merits of drug testing.  Someone accused me
    (undeservedly) of hypocrisy, and I pointed out that I would provide
    the necessary leadership in such a situation.
    
    As far as my not being required to submit to testing, isn't that 
    obvious?  What has been proposed is that employees who must perform
    certain on-site service may have to submit to testing.  My current job 
    description (SWS manager) would not seem to fall into this category, 
    though it's entirely possible that people who work for me would.
    
    re: .480
    
    You are being quite silly.  I could say that valuing differences
    includes respect for the stupid, lazy, ignorant and bigoted as well.
    That is certainly not the case.  Read the rest of my statement;
    valuing differences does not obligate Digital to advance or facilitate
    any particular political or religious agenda.  
    
    Al
    

    RE: .-1
    
    Al,
    
    Valuing differences including respect for the stupid, lazy, ignorant
    and bigoted is silly.
    
    Valuing differences with regard to race, color, sex, religion, age,
    national origin, citizenship or veteran status, sexual orientation, or
    handicap, socio-economic background, or geographic origin within a given
    country, educational experience, weight, and the many other things that
    make each of us a unique but valuable Digital employee...
    
    That is not silly.

    re: .482
    
    Isn't that what I said????!??!??!?!??!?!??!?
    
    Al
    

RE: .480

We are in agreement.  I tried to find a copy of the memo on maintaining a drug 
free environment and couldn't find it.  The drug free policy hasn't made it in
to the latest orange book yet either.

But, as I remember the memo, it seemed like the major impetus was that the 
government requires corporations above a certain size to have a policy around
maintaining a drug free environment.

My recollection is that Digital's "plan" to accomplish this is through the
normal policies and procedures and not through drug testing.

The real issue becomes, as stated earlier in this topic, how does Digital
comply wiht our customers' requirements for doing business with them.  But,
that is very different from the purpose of the memo on providing a drug free
environment in Digital.

I do not use drugs (if I did, I wouldn't say it here!) but I do eat poppy seeds
and I would refuse testing because I know the tests are not reliable.  I'm glad 
that my job and others I see myself doing in the future would not put in the
position where I would have to make that decision.  If I had people working for
me who had to make this decision, I would support them.

    You said
    
    > You are being quite silly.  
    
    to someone who had replied:
    
    > [Valuing differences refers to]. . . socio-economic background, or
    > geographic origin within a given country, or educational experience, or
    > . . . C'mon Al, it doesn't stop at just the things you mentioned.
    > Valuing differences includes _ALL_ of the areas in which we differ -
    > even down to weight! At least that's the gist of what I learned in DEC
    > workshops on Valuing Differences that I've attended.
    
    I disagree with your premise that the author was being quite silly.  I
    think he was being quite accurate.
    
    							Pat

    < Note 716.485 by DLOACT::RESENDEP "Live each day as if it were Friday" >
    
    The key sentence was:

    > Valuing differences includes _ALL_ of the areas in which we differ -
    > even down to weight! At least that's the gist of what I learned in DEC
    > workshops on Valuing Differences that I've attended.
    
    Stupidity, ignorance, laziness and bigotry most certainly fall into
    the category of 'areas in which we differ', do they not?  The author
    of the above statement even made a point of emphasizing _ALL_. Yet we
    do not value the differences I just repeated above.  The spirit
    of valuing differences extends beyond just those aspects outlined
    in PP&P 2.03a; I don't deny that.  But it IS silly to say that it
    encompasses _ALL_ employee differences, because that is patently
    false.
    
    Al
    

>the government requires companies above a certain size to have a drug testing
>policy

Let's kill that rumour really fast.  A law like that would never stand up in
court.

The requirement is for companies working on certain contracts to have a drug
testing policy.

/john

RE: .-1

Oooooops, I didn't mean to say testing policy, I meant to say stated drug free 
environmental policy.

re .488

Same thing.  Required based on contracts, not based on size of company.

    Al,
    
    For one thing, conscientious objection is a profound, if unpopular,
    belief.  I don't expect my employer to 'facilitate' it, whatever that
    means, but I expect some reasonable respect for what has been a
    lifelong personal belief.  If you want to call it religious, fine,
    if it makes you happy.  It's not political at all.
    
    Also, I see no reason not to value the difference that a person of less
    intelligence (.i.e. 'stupid') might have to offer.  Why not?
    After all, I may disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.
    
    
    :-).  Sorry, I couldn't resist.
    
    Seriously, discrimination based on percieved level of intelligence may
    be legal so far, but it's pretty rude.  Recursive, in a way.
    

    re: .490
    
    This is getting a little off the subject at hand.  I think it all 
    comes down to a question of what is 'reasonable'. I would certainly 
    not consider a persons political or religious beliefs material when 
    it comes to hiring or promotions, for example. In a very real sense, 
    Digital values these differences by ignoring them.

    Where things start to get sticky is when (or, more specifically,
    if) we allow concientious objectors (to use your example) to turn
    down work assignments.  To accomodate such a situation, there is
    a good probability that there is a cost associated with it; we might
    have to retrain someone else, transfer people, underutilize staff,
    hire additional staff, lose business.  This is no longer a passive
    valuing of differences, since we can't ignore it; Digital becomes
    a facilitator.
    
    I can probably think of several other reasons why people might wish
    to turn down work assignments - some of them silly, others quite
    plausible.  Do we honor them all?  I suspect not; therefore it places
    Digital in the position valuing certain forms of moral objection
    over others.  Is this correct?  Do we really want to do this?  How and
    where do we draw the line?  It places Digital in the position of
    evaluating which are valid forms of moral objection and which are
    not.
    
    Digital is a business, an economic activity.  I think it complicates
    things needlessly if we start to get too deep into social causes;
    it pits one employee against another.  To me, valuing differences
    means ignoring everything extraneous about an employee and looking
    solely at ability.  From the employee, I would expect a willingness 
    to tackle any assignment that doesn't run contrary to our corporate
    philosphy.
    
    Al
    

Re: .491

>    From the employee, I would expect a willingness 
>    to tackle any assignment that doesn't run contrary to our corporate
>    philosphy.
    
	The DIGITAL Philopophy

	...

	We encourage all employees to take responsibility in community,
	social, and government activities.

	The DIGITAL Culture

	...

	DIGITAL is a people-oriented company.  The employee receives courteous,
	fair, and equitable treatment.

				-- Bob

         <<< Note 716.491 by HOCUS::KOZAKIEWICZ "Shoes for industry" >>>
    
>    To me, valuing differences
>    means ignoring everything extraneous about an employee and looking
>    solely at ability.  From the employee, I would expect a willingness 
>    to tackle any assignment that doesn't run contrary to our corporate
>    philosphy.
    
    Personally, I think your priorities are unrealistic.  The corporation 
    cannot afford to expect it's employees to routinely subjugate their own
    personal beliefs for the greater good of the company or the community
    as a whole.  Personal freedom, the individual rights of 'life, liberty
    and the pursuit of happines' come first.  Privacy (i.e. drug testing),
    and conscientious objection as a manifestation of that pursuit are
    unalienable rights.
    
    I expect the company, and my management, to value me as an employee for
    what I can contribute to the business goals of the company.  If I have
    a substance problem, I expect the company to realize the obvious
    benefits of helping me overcome that problem, but not to act as big 
    brother to police my personal habits.  Offer help, perhaps even mandate
    therapy, but don't hurl cheap threats at my livihood.  If I have a 
    conscience about working with the nuke-heads, I would expect the same 
    kind of pragmatic approach to direct my efforts where the company and 
    I will mutually benefit.  In short, I don't think people should be 
    approached as disposable work-units applied to the corporate bottom line.
    I think the current trend in government policy is treat people just so.
    
    People, ALL people, have value.  Find it, and use it to the mutual
    benefit of both company and employee.  
    

    < Note 716.492 by HANNAH::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger" >

    I knew when I made that statement it would be provocative.
    
>	We encourage all employees to take responsibility in community,
>	social, and government activities.

    The operative words here are 'encourage', 'employee' and
    'responsibility'.  This does not mean that we authorize employees
    to obligate or otherwise encumber the corporation in order to lend
    support to their causes or beliefs.
    

>	DIGITAL is a people-oriented company.  The employee receives courteous,
>	fair, and equitable treatment.
    
    Does the fact that there are limits to the corporations tolerance
    (there _are_ limits you know, even if we don't agree what they are)
    somehow contradict this?
    
    Al
    

    < Note 716.493 by SCAM::GRADY "tim grady" >
    
>    Personally, I think your priorities are unrealistic.  The corporation 
>    cannot afford to expect it's employees to routinely subjugate their own
>    personal beliefs for the greater good of the company or the community
>    as a whole.
    
    The company cannot afford to honor every belief of every employee.
    I have suggested that there are limits to our tolerance although
    I don't expect everyone to agree exactly what they are. I'm not
    sorry to admit that the amount of latitude we are likely to allow
    an employee is probably proportional to the degree which we value
    his or her abilities. Frankly, you've  not admitted to any limits
    yet. If that's truly your position, I'm afraid that it's you who is 
    unrealistic.
    
>    People, ALL people, have value.  Find it, and use it to the mutual
>    benefit of both company and employee.  
    
    Technically, this is not true.  Not all people have value to the
    corporation (or shall we say sufficient value), else there would
    be no need for a termination policy.
    
                          *   *   *   *   *   *
    
    I think that we're about as close to a convergence of viewpoints
    as we're going to get, which isn't very close.  I don't want to
    beat a dead horse.  Suffice it to say, I believe in doing 'what's
    right'.  The way I hear that term overused in this conference I
    sometimes think people believe it's an absolute, or that it's always
    obvious what's right.
    
    'Doing the right thing' in a Digital - employee conflict may not 
    always mean 'the right thing as defined by the employee'.
    
    Al
    

Re: .494, .495

>>	DIGITAL is a people-oriented company.  The employee receives courteous,
>>	fair, and equitable treatment.
>    
>    Does the fact that there are limits to the corporations tolerance
>    (there _are_ limits you know, even if we don't agree what they are)
>    somehow contradict this?
    
You're right, there are "limits to the corporation's tolerance", and as a
manager you have to find the right balance between treating your "individual
contributors" fairly and maximizing the corporation's (short term) profit.
This is summed up by the wonderfully vague commandment "do what is right in
each situation".  I'm sure we'll each have our own ideas about what is right
in any given situation, but in general the goal seems to be to be true to
long term principles, and not look *only* at short term advantage.

By quoting from The DIGITAL Philosophy and The DIGITAL Culture, I was trying
to show you that there is a basis, rooted in the corporate philosophy and
culture, for you as a manager to stick up for an employee who refuses to
take a drug test on philosophical grounds.  You've made a good point, though,
that if the corporation doesn't clearly state that employees can refuse to
take drug tests without being penalized for any adverse consequences of that
refusal, that there will be a lot of pressure on managers to give bad
reviews to people who cost us business opportunities.  For that reason, those
of us who oppose mandatory drug testing shouldn't celebrate just because it
now seems likely that there will be no across the board, mandatory testing.
There could still be more subtle pressure to submit to testing, through
the performance appraisal process.  Unless the corporation makes a clear
statement about this, we may start to hear about drug-testing-related
grievances being escalated through the open door policy.

Ultimately, though, the bottom line is that I consider a bad review to be
a small price to pay for the privilege of standing up for my beliefs -- after
all, I've previously said that I'd choose to be fired rather than submit to
a drug test that I felt violated my rights.  If you're really opposed to
mandatory drug testing, as you've stated before, I hope you'll do your part
by backing up people in your group who also take this stand.

				-- Bob

         <<< Note 716.495 by HOCUS::KOZAKIEWICZ "Shoes for industry" >>>
    
>    I have suggested that there are limits to our tolerance although
>    I don't expect everyone to agree exactly what they are. I'm not
>    sorry to admit that the amount of latitude we are likely to allow
>    an employee is probably proportional to the degree which we value
>    his or her abilities. 
    
    Actually, I think we agree on that point.  I agree that the company has
    the right to make decisions on the disposition of employees based on
    their contribution and performance.  I just don't believe that it
    should violate their rights in the process, nor uniformly direct those
    employees' careers toward termination or prosecution.  I think Digital
    should look for help in determining when an investment in
    rehabilitation is a good business decision.  I don't think most
    managers are currently capable of that, let alone goaled toward it.
    
>    Not all people have value to the
>    corporation (or shall we say sufficient value), else there would
>    be no need for a termination policy.
    
    Again, I agree.  I think the difference here is more semantics.  I do
    believe that all people have some inherent value.  It just may not be
    useful to Digital.
    
    So you see, we did come to some convergence after all...our
    perspectives of the issue are different.
    
    tim
    

    So, to take up the argument of the viability of refusing an
    assignment...
    
    Let us suppose that we have an employee who's religious beliefs
    would not allow him to work at a customer site that dealt with 
    Nuc's.  And this employee was allowed to refuse the assignment
    (i'm speaking PSS here..).  How would that differ from an employee
    who's political beliefs prevented him to do the same assignment?
    
    Would we say that because specialist "A"'s beliefs were based upon
    a religious belief (and we respect that view by our differing values)
    that he was justified in his request - but not spec "B", because
    his view was political vs. religious [what would be the difference]??
    
    Now then.  Let's say I don't want to support the gov's postion that
    employers must test employees for drug use (presumed guilty and
    make the employee produce evidence to support the prosecution).
    If I feel that this is a rights violation - do I not have a
    responsibility to my fellow americans to stand up for our right
    of privacy, and refuse to be tested?
    
    Do I as a stockholder in DEC have the authority to dictate to
    management that the business is more important than it's employees?
    
    My bottom line belief (if you haven't figured it out by now ;')
    is that testing for drug abuse should not be a function of our
    business.  If were are required to stipulate that our employees
    are "drug free", then a written agreement to that fact should be
    entered into - with that fact, and let it go at that (leave it as
    a performance issue!).
    
    -Jp    

    
Note 716.495                
HOCUS::KOZAKIEWICZ 
    
>>    Personally, I think your priorities are unrealistic.  The corporation 
>>    cannot afford to expect it's employees to routinely subjugate their own
>>    personal beliefs for the greater good of the company or the community
>>    as a whole.
>    
>>    The company cannot afford to honor every belief of every employee.

An employee's beliefs can be respected and tolerated without being "honored".
Respect and tolerance are all most employees ask in return for their
contributions.

>    I have suggested that there are limits to our tolerance although
>    I don't expect everyone to agree exactly what they are. I'm not
>    sorry to admit that the amount of latitude we are likely to allow
>    an employee is probably proportional to the degree which we value
>    his or her abilities. 

Our best and our brightest may expect that the least of us are entitled to
the same treatment as the best of us.
    
>    Technically, this is not true.  Not all people have value to the
>    corporation (or shall we say sufficient value), else there would
>    be no need for a termination policy.

Most people have skills and talents that contribute to the corporation
in different but meaningfull ways.  

    
>    'Doing the right thing' in a Digital - employee conflict may not 
>    always mean 'the right thing as defined by the employee'.
    
We have always been a team here Al.  The corporation and the employees 
have always pulled together to share our success and our problems.  We
have hung in there through wage freezes and through cost containment
and we continued to respect each other and to pull together... like a 
family.  

What is "the right thing" for the employee, is also the "right
thing" for the corporation.  Digital is more than a company to us.  We
are proud of our association with it, and we are proud to be a part of
this team.  We will continue to be in the future, I am sure.  Digital
reflect the values of each and every one of us.  It won't let us down.

Mary    

    Please take a look at note 883. It is somewhat related to this
    discussion.
    
    

    I didn't want to clutter the survey being conducted in 883 with
    editorial comments, but I just couldn't let this reply stand without
    comment.
    
        
              <<< HUMAN::DISK$HUMAN_WRKD:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;2 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 883.77                     What will YOU do?                       77 of 80
NITTY::COHEN "What a wonderful peice of work is man" 10 lines   9-AUG-1989 09:10
                        -< Tough Times - Tough Actions >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a> Happily Submit
    b> Happily Submit
    c> Submit
    
>    I believe we are in the middle of a war and that extreem measures MUST
>    be taken. I also agree with the reply that states only people who are 
>    drug users need be concerned by the testing. 

    What kind of comment is this??  You feel that if someone (myself
    included) is concerned about drug testing then that person is a
    drug user?
    
    If so, you owe several dozen fellow employees who voiced their
    collective and individual concern over the invasion of their privacy,
    and the potential violation of their constitutional rights, a *huge*
    apology.
    
    If not, you should carefully reword your position to be less
    inflammatory.
    
    The inference of your response is frightening, and to be perfectly
    blunt, I'm offended.
    
    Mark.
    tac
    

    Because of "DEC culture" drug testing will only become necessary
    if DEC wishes to continue doing business with those customers that
    require their vendors have a "drug free" environment.  So the real
    question becomes "Should DEC do business with those who require
    drug testing?".  That is a lot of our business!
    
    Those people who would leave DEC because of this issue will have
    to face the issue elsewhere.  I doubt very seriously if there would
    be any legal remedies available.
    
    An invasion of privacy?  Sure, probably.  What do you think happens
    every time you give blood at the loacl blood bank?
    
    Irv Waldo

    < Note 716.503 by TILTS::WALDO >
>    Those people who would leave DEC because of this issue will have
>    to face the issue elsewhere.  
    
    Not necessarily.  I disagree with your conclusion..
    
    karl

    Re 883.77

>    I believe we are in the middle of a war and that extreem measures MUST
>    be taken. I also agree with the reply that states only people who are 
>    drug users need be concerned by the testing. 

    You speak from a point of "extreem" [sic] ignorance. Listen to what's been
    going on here! We're talking about a basic right to privacy, and the
    action of rescinding that right to wage a poorly defined "war". I speak
    out against arbitrary drug testing. I never take anything stronger than
    an aspirin, about 4 wine coolers a year, and don't smoke - my only
    addiction is to junk food. I will not submit to a drug test on
    someones whim, because I feel strongly that it is a gross violation of
    my basic rights. Wake up! Or next thing you know, they'll be pinning
    your eyes open and forcing you to watch John Wayne movies.
    
    Re .503:

>    An invasion of privacy?  Sure, probably.  What do you think happens
>    every time you give blood at the loacl blood bank?

    When was the last time you were forced to give blood in order to retain
    your employment?

    In the National Football League, where they have (1) drug testing and
    (2) a number of drug users, some players have admitted to going to
    unscrupulous doctors to be catheterized and filled with clean urine so
    they can pass the test.  William Nance Gardner once commented that the
    Vice-Presidency wasn't "worth a bucket of warm p*ss" (no, it was not
    "spit").  Well, the value of a bucket of warm p*ss may be going up.

    Now that I have your attention 8^):
    
    I think one legal issue here is that Digital is not the United States
    Government, and as such is not necessarily bound by the same
    Constitutional provisions that apply to the government. 
    Nobody forced you to work here, and no one is forcing you to remain. 
    Our employment agreement is a voluntary contract entered into by both
    sides, and it may be terminated by either side.  
    Unfortunately, there is some lattitude in what a private company can
    require of its employees, which if requested by the government would be
    an infringement of rights.  For example, I may not discuss with my
    friends from IBM the details of the project I'm working on.  Isn't that
    violating my freedom of expression?  If I am inspired to write, on my
    own time, some absolutely revolutionary operating system, I can't keep
    it.  Is that Constitutional?  If I violate my employment agreement,
    I'll be fired.  Being fired is not unconstitutional.  If I flunk my
    drug tests enough, I'll be fired.  (Now, if my employer turns me in for
    prosecution, I think that would be another matter.)
    
    It's entirely possible the courts will decide that corporate
    drug testing, as a condition of employment, falls into the same
    category.  The Supreme Court has already ruled that drug testing of
    Federal transportation workers *IS* Constitutional.

    This is not so different from the "infringement of rights" exercised by
    other institutions.  Do prisoners get to travel?  Can they bear arms?
    If they do certain things you or I can do with impunity, they may be
    shot. Can schoolchildren publish obscene newspapers?  Can THEY bear
    arms?  (Well, some do, but it's generally considered a bad thing.)  I
    may be wrong, but if schoolchildren do certain things you or I can do
    with impunity, they may be physically punished.

    I suppose this is taking things to extremes, and it would be fair to
    point out that I'm grouping Digital employees with prisoners and
    children.  But I suggest that drug testing of employees is somewhere on
    the same spectrum of infringement of rights by private organizations.

    By the way, Karl (.504):  I think Digital is one of the few companies
    large enough, nervy enough, employee-conscious enough, and independent
    enough of Federal dollars to successfully resist the call for drug
    testing.  If Digital knuckles under, I fear it may be one of the last
    to go.  Therefore, I agree with the conclusion in .503:  If drug
    testing comes to Digital, and an employee quits, he'll have nowhere
    else to go.

Re: .506

>    I think one legal issue here is that Digital is not the United States
>    Government, and as such is not necessarily bound by the same
>    Constitutional provisions that apply to the government. 

That may be true, but I question the constitutionality of a *government* policy
requiring that private employers conduct searches that would be illegal if
conducted by the government itself.

>    Our employment agreement is a voluntary contract entered into by both
>    sides, and it may be terminated by either side.  

Exactly.  If Digital abuses what I consider to be my rights, I will terminate
our agreement.

>    It's entirely possible the courts will decide that corporate
>    drug testing, as a condition of employment, falls into the same
>    category.

I'm afraid you may be right, but that wouldn't change the fact that freedom
from unreasonable searches is a right that I am willing to *fight* for.

>    If Digital knuckles under, I fear it may be one of the last
>    to go.  Therefore, I agree with the conclusion in .503:  If drug
>    testing comes to Digital, and an employee quits, he'll have nowhere
>    else to go.

I suspect that there will always be small companies around willing to hire
the "black listed" talent.  DEC does *not* own me, even if there's "nowhere
else to go".

				-- Bob
 

re: .503
    
>    An invasion of privacy?  Sure, probably.  What do you think happens
>    every time you give blood at the loacl blood bank?
    
Come on now Irv, how can you equate giving blood at the blood bank with
drug testing? The former is quite a voluntary act while the later may not
be. In this context it would not be voluntary.

- George

    Since I come from somewhere that doesn't have a written 
    constitootion, I'll refrain from joining in the "rights"
    discussion on the grounds that I don't have any anyway.
    
    However, that doesn't make me willing to submit to drug-testing
    as a condition of employment.  
    
    My take on all this is that it's pretty similar to me getting
    a letter from The Company which says "Dear Employee: you are
    Hereby Notified that We Do Not Trust You At All."  The legality
    of this doesn't worry me; what does worry me is that the place
    that I used to think was a nice, friendly, open sort of
    place to work will have suddenly changed its nature, and
    therefore the reasons that have kept me here probably
    won't apply any more.
    
    

re: several discussing the "nowhere else to go" syndrome.

    There are plenty of small (and even not-so-small) companies that simply
    DON'T DO business with the government or any of its agencies. Period.
    Categorically. Actually, I find that to be an endearing trait!

    I seriously doubt that this nation would ever get so hypersensitized
    on the "War against drugs" that it would ever extend an embargo to
    the limits of requiring a drug-free work force down to the vendors'
    vendors' vendors' vendors, for example. Can you imagine DEC asking
    for a drug-free work force guarantee from the company they buy paper
    products for the rest rooms from? Or from the people who manufacture
    the sheet metal we use in our cabinets? How 'bout the manufacturers
    of the tape we seal boxes with at the SDC (oops - SSB!)?

    I'd still be very interested to know what would happen if DEC went
    back to the Federal government and said something like:

    "Yes - we have procedures already in place to ensure a drug-free
     work force on this contract project. No - I'm afraid the details
     and records are not available for your inspection. They are con-
     fidential and proprietary."

    -Jack

> < Note 716.510 by WHYVAX::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dog face)" >

>    I'd still be very interested to know what would happen if DEC went
>    back to the Federal government and said something like:
>
>    "Yes - we have procedures already in place to ensure a drug-free
>     work force on this contract project. No - I'm afraid the details
>     and records are not available for your inspection. They are con-
>     fidential and proprietary."

Various entities in the Federal Government have subpeona power.
(The good news there might still be a need for probable cause to issue
the subpeona.)
Some contracts will also have clauses allowing for auditing of project
progress, which could be interpreted as the right to access such records.

Look way back in this topic, probably before .200 or so, about how the Feds
have used schools to administer what would otherwise be illegal tests 
and then appropriate the results.

- tom]

This is an issue that's close to hitting home with me.  I'm currently
contracted to an Air Force Base, and my contract expires at the end of this
year.  Since the Government has said that all new and renewed contracts will
include a clause mandating drug testing for all contractors exposed to
classified materials, I expect to be asked to take a drug test.  

The whole drug-test issue bothers me.  On the one hand, I've never used drugs
(although I have been known to drink Scotch, which some say is worse  :-), so I
resent the invasion of privacy.  On the other hand, I can remember working in a
manufacturing plant where it was a semi-regular occurrance for employees to
come to work high/stoned/plastered and drive a forklift over someones foot or
something.  (Seriously, several incidents a year.)  My gut reaction is that
these jokers who come in stoned and operate heavy equipment should be disarmed
BEFORE they seriously maim someone.  But you can't fire or demote them just
because you SUSPECT them of using drugs.  (That'd be worse than drug testing!)

So, as with any issue, there are pros and cons to drug testing.  I think it's
WRONG to just arbitrarily say everyone should be tested.  I think it's wrong
to allow someone to come to work stoned and injure others.  I think it's wrong
to give a supervisor/manager power to fire or demote a person just because he
suspects this person is a user.  I think, for persons who work in a capacity
such that they could do serious harm by comeing to work stoned, the employer
should be allowed to request drug testing for that person IF THERE IS REASON TO
SUSPECT HE/SHE COMES TO WORK STONED.  (To be perfectly fair, this should extend
to alcohol as well... even prescription drugs if they affect your ability to
perform your job safely.)  

In short, I can't really see a clear answer to this one.  I don't want anyone
violating my rights, but I DO want them to be able to prevent an irresponsible 
co-worker from maiming or killing me.  (It just doesn't wash to wait 'til he's
already hurt someone before firing him.)

Tough question.  And I haven't seen ANYONE yet who's got a real answer.


					John

    Ive reposted this part of this note here, to avoid cluttering 883
    with the reactions to this note. The rest of this note (the answers
    to 883.0's questions) are posted as reply to 883
    
    Rick LeVine
    MODERAtOR, HUMAN::DIGITAL
    
    
    
              <<< HUMAN::DISK$HUMAN_WRKD:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;2 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 883.86                     What will YOU do?                       86 of 86
CRAIG::YANKES                                        22 lines  10-AUG-1989 11:57
           -< I won't join in the unemployment line over this one. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


	
	As a comment on the poll itself and not the issue -- In this age when
many people consider DEC as having too many employees, or at least too many with
the wrong skillset, I'm amazed that so many of the negative respondants in here,
a group perhaps generalized as being afraid of what The Company might do with
information in the wrong hands, is publicly telling the whole company what would
make them leave.  Somewhat of a contradiction, I'd say.

								-craig

p.s.  I did have to have a urine test done this past spring for a Life Insurance
application.  No big deal -- all it did was prove exactly what I put down on
the application and kept me in the lowest-premium category.

    < Note 716.513 by NITTY::COHEN "What a wonderful peice of work is man..." >


>    Re: 716.501
>    
>-->    The inference of your response is frightening, and to be perfectly
>-->    blunt, I'm offended.
>    
>    There was no offense meant by my reply. I was just stating my opinion.
>    That I do not believe that this is a Right to Privacy Issue. I respect
>    your opinion and would "Fight for your right to have it and communicate 
>    it" but I do not have to agree with it. AND DON'T.

    How can it NOT be a Right to Privacy issue?  If someone wants to
    determine what I'm doing during my free time, it IS an invasion
    of my privacy.
    
    But it goes beyond that.  Not only does the scenario in 883 invade
    my privacy, it presumes I'm guilty and it tells me that the company
    doesn't trust me when I say that I don't take drugs.  

>-->    If so, you owe several dozen fellow employees who voiced their
>-->    collective and individual concern over the invasion of their privacy,
>-->    and the potential violation of their constitutional rights, a *huge*
>-->    apology.
>
>    If you were to follow the line of reasoning that says drug testing
>    is not an invasion of your privacy then the only people who need be 
>    concerned by the testing are the active drug users. This is the way I look
>    at it. I do not feel that testing something I am going to freely discard 
>    and no longer wish any claim to is an invasion. 

    I don't follow your line of reasoning, therefore I believe your
    argument to be irrelevant.  If the results of this testing can be
    used to incriminate you and to jeopardize your career growth potential,
    it shouldn't matter whether or not they're testing something that
    you "would freely discard".
    
>       Part of the problem is that we have a very serious problem in the US,
>    Drugs, and we need to find some way of determining the sellers and users
>    of drugs so that we can help them. Lets not be naive; society does
>    things all the time to protect itself and help its citizens even if they
>    do not ask for, or wish for help.

    That does not make it right.
    
    Society does not need police state tactics to verify that law-abiding,
    people (in this case, Digital employees) are telling the truth when
    they say they are not using drugs.

    
>    Now I will agree that this may not work perfectly because of the
>    fallibility of the test, but I believe that this sends a message out 
>    that we as a society (and as Digital) find drug using abhorrent and
>    will not tolerate it. I also believe that we as a country should be 
>    doing more proactive measures to stop drugs, such as education, more
>    law enforcement to stop the trafficers and more clinics/aid to help
>    people who are addicted.

    I believe it sends the message that "we, as society, do not trust
    you, and that we will test you against your will to make sure you
    are telling the truth."

    

>    If you were to follow the line of reasoning that says drug testing
>    is not an invasion of your privacy then the only people who need be 
>    concerned by the testing are the active drug users. This is the way I look
>    at it. I do not feel that testing something I am going to freely discard 
>    and no longer wish any claim to is an invasion. 

According to this line of reasoning, if you are not a thief and have not been
stealing DEC property then you should have no objection to DEC and or the
government conducting random searches of your home.  Certainly your body is 
more inviolate than your home.  Enough is enough.. this is where we
draw the line.    

>       Part of the problem is that we have a very serious problem in the US,
>    Drugs, and we need to find some way of determining the sellers and users
>    of drugs so that we can help them. Lets not be naive; society does
>    things all the time to protect itself and help its citizens even if they
>    do not ask for, or wish for help.

I'm not convinced that drugs really are a serious problem in society.  Most
of the violence comes from drug laws not drugs.  If drugs were not illegal
than there would be no profit and no violence.  Its possible that drugs are
being used an an excuse to strip away the very rights we are discussing here
now.  Some people will self destruct with drugs but those people will
always find a way to self destruct if thats what they want to do.
The entire country should not trade its freedom to protect those few
people who choose to self destruct.  

>    I also believe that we as a country should be 
>    doing more proactive measures to stop drugs, such as education, more
>    law enforcement to stop the trafficers and more clinics/aid to help
>    people who are addicted.

With all of the money and attention focused on the drug war today, with
the borders sealed, I cannot believe that drugs are continuing to come into 
the country without the knowledge and/or assistance of government.  If cocaine
was brought into the country in government planes (as was disclosed in the 
Iran/Contra hearings) and then sold to provide money for the Contra's war 
then the government has a history of drug dealing for its own purposes.
The entire drug situation could conceivably have been developed for just
the purpose of stripping us of the rights granted us by the Bill of Rights
and Declaration of Independence.

Some of us will never submit to any intrusive invasion of privacy.  If it
means that we cannot work then we will not be the only ones to suffer.
It is our tax money that supports the governments drug war and Savings
and Loan bailout and HUD handouts.  Perhaps the system can survive 
without us and perhaps it can't.... but the government has at least as
much to lose as we do in this.

Don't think that we will be starved into submission (which is what this
is all about really).  We will find our own ways to survive.  Of course,
the resentment will never go away.  Bush may find his thousand points of
light burning brightly underneath him.

Mary

    Re: 716.501
	
    I am NOT accusing anyone of being a drug user. And I appologize for the
    misunderstanding. Quite possibly the wording of my reply was too harsh.
    There was no offense meant by my reply. I was just stating my opinion.
    That I do not believe that this is a Right to Privacy Issue or if it is
    it is a very minor one compared to the problem. I respect your opinion and 
    would "Fight for your right to have it and communicate it" but I do not 
    have to agree with it. AND DON'T.
      
    Thanks
    
    tac    

    I have hit a frustration level reading back and forth why and why not
    drug testing. I will speak from experience.  1976 U.S. Navy, I 
    had been in the Navy for five years and I was in a 20 wk comm school
    in San Diego. At that time Drug testing was happening randomly
    throughout the military. Our class was called out on afternoon to
    go to the admin building where we were met by an officer and corpmen
    for drug testing/urine samples. I had recently burnt my foot and was
    taking codine for pain. I told the corpmen I had been taking medication
    for my foot he said no problem he would mark it down on the list. 
    About a week later I got called out of class (publicly (sp) ) to go 
    see the shrink my drug test came back positive. Feeling like the world
    had just caved in, I went for the visit as I arrived I was told they
    don't see drug addicts until later in the day. Finally got to see the
    shrink and had one hassle trying to explain the situation. I finally
    got it resolved. Fortunately it was only a temporary duty station for
    me and I could move on. 
    
    My question, could this happen in the private sector ? I think so.
     
     Could one recover a reputation as quick as it was destroyed ? Doubtful
    
                                    Mike
     

    The drug testing survey note asked people what effect their leaving
    would have on the group, and most responses have been of the "they'd
    survive without me" type.  While this is probably true for any single
    individual, if 50% (to pick a random number) of the engineering force 
    were to leave because of drug testing, it would have a severe (and
    possibly fatal) effect on the company.  In a way, this is very similar
    to civil disobedience: any 1 or 100, or 1000 people can be thrown
    in jail, but what do you do when all the jails are full?
    
    If enough of us refuse to accept this infringement on our civil
    liberties, we CAN force DEC out of this course of action.
    
    Steve
    

    re .521  What effect?  Talk is cheap.  When the rubber meets
    the road, how many of those who said they'd leave would accually
    hit the road?  No don't take another survey.  Lip [or in this case
    finger] service is cheap and hard to measure without it happening.
    #ed
    

    Re: [.516 (Mary Stanley)]:
    
    >>With all of the money and attention focused on the drug war today, with
    >>the borders sealed, I cannot believe that drugs are continuing to come
    >>into the country without the knowledge and/or assistance of government.  If
    >>cocaine was brought into the country in government planes (as was 
    >>disclosed in the Iran/Contra hearings) and then sold to provide money 
    >>for the Contra's war then the government has a history of drug dealing 
    >>for its own purposes. The entire drug situation could conceivably have 
    >>been developed for just the purpose of stripping us of the rights 
    >>granted us by the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence.
    
    Wow.
    
    I was tempted to label this as paranoid claptrap, but there are true
    statements and historical precedents here.  It's very heard to "seal"
    the thousands of miles of borders of the United States, which include
    oceans, deserts, and mountains.  Remember, we have no armed or defended
    borders.  Russia comes much closer to having a "sealed" border, and
    commercial airliners have flown directly into Soviet airspace and gone
    for literally hours undetected.  Small boats approaching the shore, and
    small aircraft low to the ground, are apparently almost impossible to
    detect on radar.  While I know for a fact that the government KNOWS
    drugs are coming in to this country, I find it hard to believe the
    government is ASSISTING the drug traffickers.  I say this despite
    Iran-Contra, and despite what the British did to the Chinese.
    
    Re: later replies:
    
    I suppose, as a nation, we have demonstrated that we cannot be trusted. 
    But still I don't react the same way some do to the notion that drug
    testing says we're not trustworthy.  Is that how you reacted when you
    interviewed here, and the hiring manager asked you about your
    education: "Yes, I went to State U.!  Don't you trust me?"  Is that how
    you reacted when the Registry of Motor Vehicles started your eye test:
    "I said I could see!  Don't you trust me?"  I could go on, but you get
    the point.  Hey, our coffee club at work is losing a lot of money. 
    I was at a party once where the host ran out of food and passed a hat;
    someone stole the hat!  (I'm serious.)  Most people are trustworthy;
    some are not.  The ones who aren't screw it up for the rest of us.
    
    Re: a reply about the impact of engineers leaving]:
    
    Yes, if 50% (to use your "random" number) of the engineers left, it
    would have a serious impact on the company.  But if a plausible,
    realistic, meaningful, common-sense, non-hyperbolic, unexaggerated
    number ACTUALLY left--like, say, one half of one percent, which I
    estimate at 300 engineers--no, why fool around?--if one-half of one
    percent of the WORKFORCE summarily left the company, which would be
    about 625 people--then I think Digital would survive.
    
    (If 625 people left, I, for one, would be astounded.  Just my opinion.)
    

More fiendish advocacy Steve? :-)


Anyway, it seems to me to miss a lot of the point if the argument
comes down to "Well, not that many people will REALLY leave, so it's
not going to damage the company SO much..."  as a few folk have
suggested in the last couple of replies.

So far as I can tell from the replies to the would you/wouldn't you
note, a large majority are prepared to say they wouldn't take drug
tests and would leave if it came to the crunch. It would seem to me
the worst damage you could do to the company would be to have a policy
that forced a lot of people to do something they clearly feel strongly
they shouldn't have to do.

These folks might still be in the company at the end of the day, but
what kind of morale have they got left? What would be their attitude
towards a company that forced that on them? What would be left of the
trust between the people and the company? What left of the feeling
that there are common goals we're all pulling towards? 

It's not exactly a recipe for success or any kind of preparation to
face the "challenge of the 90's".

Mick

    Re .522:
    
    > When the rubber meets the road, how many of those who said they'd
    > leave would accually hit the road?
    
    I've been in contact with a person at Texas Instruments.  Since TI
    announced they would have drug testing for all employees, people have
    left, including some senior engineers who had been with the company for
    15 years, etc.  I'm sure when the tests actually start, even more
    people will leave.
    
    
    				-- edp 

    (speaking as a noter and not a moderator at this moment)
    
    I dont think that ANY number of people leaving would put DIGITAL
    out of business or even seriously slow down over-all productivity.
                               
    And, while I cant speak for anyone else, if I left, it would be
    in order to remain true to my beliefs about what being an *American
    really means, NOT to spite or damage Digital. Digital has provided
    me with a tremendous amount of training and experience, for which
    Im very grateful.                              
    
    My basenote in 883 was NOT intended to coerce the "policy makers"
    into backing down. I'm quite sure that they fully realized that
    some people would submit gladly,some would leave, others would 
    be angry and stay, and that employee perception of "DEC-culture" 
    would necessarily change. 
    (I attended a lecture last year at the mill in which a high ranking
    personnel-consultant told us that "DEC-culture" would have to
    change if Digital were going to survive in the '90s. Maybe this
    is PART 1.) 
    
    This has little to do with morality, politics, or a "war" on
    anything. It has to do with a three million dollar contract
    NOW and others like it thereafter. I have to admit that if the
    government was going to make the $3M check out to ME, I'd 
    probably feel better about filling the cup for them.  
    
    

    I have found Digital a wonderful place to work: a good environment
    with intelligent co-workers, challenging assignments, supportive
    management and fantastic toys.  The pay isn't bad either, but it's not
    the most important thing: I wouldn't leave for a poorer environment 
    for a 50% raise.
    
    However, mandatory drug testing, which I see as a violation of trust as
    much as an invasion of privacy, changes that.  George Schultz, former
    U.S. Secretary of State, was once asked on national television what he
    would do if he were asked to take a lie detector test.  He tried to
    avoid answering, but the reporters pressured him, so he responded that
    he would take the test, and immediately resign.  He didn't say why, but
    it's easy to guess: lack of trust.
    
    George Schultz wouldn't have any trouble getting another job, so his
    position was credible.  I wouldn't have any trouble getting another job
    either, since I've been in the computer business since 1964, and have
    experience on a variety of IBM and DEC systems, plus a few others.
    Indeed, I suspect that most DEC software engineers wouldn't have any
    trouble getting a job with a DEC customer, probably at a significant
    increase in pay.  It used to be said that if you walked down a street
    in Silicon Valley holding up a sign saying "VAX experience", people
    would come rushing out of the buildings to offer you a job.  That may
    no longer be true, but I'm sure that DEC software engineers are highly
    respected among DEC customers.
    
    I can't speak for other areas than Software Engineering, because I've
    never worked in any other capacity for DEC.
    
    I feel sure that management is aware that DEC software engineers (at
    least) stay because of the good environment that I referred to at the
    top of this response.  I feel confident that they will do all in their
    power to maintain that good environment.  If that means providing an
    alternative short of resignation for those who refuse to take drug
    tests, they'll provide it.  In essence, I have confidence that
    management will find a way to avoid my having to choose between taking
    a drug test and resignation.
        John Sauter

    RE: .526
    
>  I have to admit that if the government was going to make the $3M check out
>  to ME, I'd  probably feel better about filling the cup for them.  
    
   However, the way drug tests are conducted the person receiving the check
   and the person signing for it are NEVER subjected to one.
   
   - Vikas

    As we have all heard, the US Armed Forces have been doing testing for some
    time. My question is have the President, Cabinet Officers, Joint Chiefs,
    Congress, and Congressional staffs been tested??  My feeling is that if
    this is a "war", then all should participate.  One of the things that I
    like about Mayor Young of Detroit is that he was the first one tested when
    he made the police department do testing.  While I disagree with his
    decision to do testing, at least he was a leader.

    Lee G.

Re: .514

>p.s.  I did have to have a urine test done this past spring for a Life Insurance
>application.  No big deal -- all it did was prove exactly what I put down on
>the application and kept me in the lowest-premium category.

No big deal indeed!

Did you have to produce your sample under the watchful eyes of an enforcer?

Were you subject to loss of employment due to a false positive or could you try
another insurance company?

This is NOT a similar situation in my book!

Steve

>    < Note 716.522 by WORDS::BADGER "One Happy camper ;-)" >
>                       -< who'll cross the line first? >-
>    Talk is cheap.  When the rubber meets the road, how many of those 
>    who said they'd leave would accually hit the road?  
    
    Let's see.. I have a problem with lack of trust on DEC's part re
    drug testing.  Then YOU don't believe I'm telling the truth about 
    my intent to leave if/when widespread drug testing is instituted.
    
    Hard to believe ! ;-)
    
    karl

	Re: .530

>Did you have to produce your sample under the watchful eyes of the enforcer?

	Well, not really since the insurance agent was in our diningroom and I
was in the bathroom.  So?


>Were you subject to loss of employment due to a false positive or could you try
>another insurance company?

	No to the first, but a "not really" to the second.  Insurance companies
do swap medical information, so going to another company does not mean it will
be hidden.  However, the insurance company has reasonable policies governing
second (or third or fourth...) tests to negate *anything* their tests come up
with.  My wife's test, for example, revealed elevated liver enzymes that could
point to some real nasty problems.  A "false positive"?  No!!!  It was quite
real and we were *thankful* (to say the least) to have it identified.  We went
to our doctor for more tests (which confirmed the insurance company's tests)
and determined that the cause was not a problem.  A letter from our doctor
describing a clean bill of health was sent and the insurance coverage was
approved.  (And, incidently, the insurance company doesn't report any test
results that have been explained.)

	So let me change my "no big deal" statement -- it *was* a big deal
since it identified a possible life-threatening problem with my wife's liver.

	Of course, I could have always stuck to my perceived "freedoms" and,
besides not getting the insurance coverage that my family needs, risked my
wife's life if it really was something.  I suspect we differ on priorities.

							-craig

Hey, if all this drug-testing is part of a "war on drugs", I guess
I'm exempt from the call-up -- I'm not a citizen!

Good news for me, I guess.

    
    "A lot of people don't realize how important innocence is to innocent
    people."
    

    > "A lot of people don't realize how important innocence is to innocent
    > people."
    
    So what's that supposed to mean?
    
    							Pat

    > "A lot of people don't realize how important innocence is to innocent
    > people."
    
    >> So what's that supposed to mean?


Pat,

I think that is in reference to several of the earlier replies that say
basically, "Only people with something to hide oppose drug testing".

Bob

    That's a quote from the movie Cry in the Dark which depicts the story
    of a family whose baby was carried off and killed by a dingo in
    Australia.  It took years for them to clear the mother of wrongdoing.
    
    Marge

RE:  .732

>>Did you have to produce your sample under the watchful eyes of the enforcer?
>
>        Well, not really since the insurance agent was in our diningroom and I
>was in the bathroom.  So?

So?  Well, as I understand it, drug testing as being considered means you will
have an audience present for the sample production.

Why?  Because you are NOT TRUSTED.  Simple.  Period.

There is little similarity between the two scenarios.

>        Of course, I could have always stuck to my perceived "freedoms" and,
>besides not getting the insurance coverage that my family needs, risked my
>wife's life if it really was something.  I suspect we differ on priorities.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm *very happy* that you were able to early diagnose and
address a medical problem and that your family's health was improved as a
result.  If I put myself in your shoes, I believe I can see how you feel since
this has had a direct benefit on a loved one.

However, I can't follow the line of reasoning that this example "justifies"
mandatory drug testing.  Following that logic (that saving lives justifies it),
we would not have fought in wars (admittedly a STUPID activity anyway!) since we
could have preserved thousands of lives by not doing so (here come the flames, I
can see it now).

Just yesterday morning on NPR, Morning Edition carried a story about companies 
that are now beginning to perform genetic predisposition tests prior to 
employment to identify those with high-potential for expensive medical benefits 
coverage, thus barring them as candidates for jobs, regardless of 
qualifications, because they MIGHT someday require expensive medical care.  
That's a related issue.

I think there is a bigger issue at hand, that of addressing proper and improper
invasions of privacy.  It's sad that there is no constitutional right to
privacy, perhaps an oversight of the founding fathers who never could have
anticipated this problem -- they likely had much more privacy than we still
have managed to retain, computers notwithstanding.

I think our priorities are not all that different.  We all have families.  And
we're citizens of one or another country.  And we're employees.  And sometimes
our priorities are in conflict.  Mandatory drug testing brings personal rights,
employer interests, and national policy all into conflict.  Thus, the active
discussion here.  With no easy answers, I'm afraid.  I respect your right to
disagree.  I wish the world were a simpler place with easy answers ... but I
guess that would be boring!  :-{

Steve

    I don't know if you would consider this a relevent precedent, but since
    it reflects the decision of a Federal judge, and on a semi-related
    topic, I thought the audience might find it interesting:
    
Copied without permission from the St. Petersburg Times, August 11, 
1989:

   TAMPA -- A federal judge has ordered the city of Tampa to rehire 
and give back pay to three water department workers fired in 1987 as a 
result of unconstitutional drug tests.
   Wendell Pelley, William E. Hensel and William C. Taylor should be 
reinstated, according to an order signed Thursday by U.S. District 
Judge William Castagna.
   Castagna also gave the workers 20 days to submit records of back 
pay, minus wages they may have earned at other jobs in the interim.  
Castagna then will rule on the amount of back pay due each man.
   Another employee, Robert F. Klein, also was subject to the February 
1987 drug tests that later were found unconstitutional.  He was not 
fired but was required to use up 40 hours of sick leave to attend a 
drug rehabilitation program.  Castagna's order requires the city to 
restore the sick leave and repay Klein the $237 he paid to attend the 
program.
   "To the extent they got reinstated, we're happy about that," said 
James A. Sheehan, attorney for the four men.  "That issue was really 
at the heart of our case.  Otherwise, if they had a constitutional 
right violated, and the city could still fire them, what kind of right 
is it?"
   Thomas Gonzalez, a private attorney who defended the city in the 
lawsuit, said, "We still feel like we did the right thing.  We don't 
want drugs in the workplace."
   The four men were among eight Tampa Water Department employees who 
sued the city in March, 1987, the first suit to challenge Tampa's drug 
testing policy.  Four of the men who had not been fired dropped out of 
the suit after the city paid their attorneys' fees.
   Tampa does not permit random testing but requires certain workers 
to submit to urinalysis if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that they 
abused drugs or alcohol.
   On Feb. 16, 1987, however, all 23 employees at the Morris Street 
Bridge Plant were met by city officials who required the workers to 
sign forms consenting to urinalysis.  Armed police then took the 
workers to St. Joseph's Hospital for testing.
   Several who tested positive were required to enter the city's 
rehabilitation program and submit to further, random testing.
   Taylor failed a second test and was fired.  Hensel was fired in 
April 1987 after he refused to take a second test.  His lawyer argued 
that it was unfair to require the second test when the legality of the 
first test was still undetermined.
   Pelley, because he had tested positive in the fall of 1986, was 
fired after the positive results of the Feb. 16, 1987, test.
   Because of those second test results, the city opposed reinstating 
the men.  But Castagna ruled that Taylor and Hensel would not have 
been in the rehabilitation program -- and subject to a second test -- 
except for the unconstitutional test on Feb 16.
    

It hasn't been touched on very heavily here what might also come to pass after
the drug testing has been accepted.  A friend works for Lockheed which makes
most of it's money from government contracts.  He's upset because of the latest
controls that the U.S. are imposing on Lockheed.  The government now monitors
the amount that Lockheed spends on employee insurance so that it is not above
the industry norms thereby costing taxpayers more.  He says, starting this fall,
company payments for insurance will be approximately nill.  Not only that,
*but*, the government also monitors Lockheed employee *salaries* for the same 
reason.  Raises are meager and few.

At least this way, companies accepting government contracts don't have to
be officially nationalized.  This is the price paid for government contracts.

Regards,

David Tucker @ato

This happens when you take on "cost plus" contracts.

I hope Digital never agrees to a "cost plus" contract.

/john

    Re. earlier note questioning how many people would actually leave
    and how many are just paying lip service? I've a better question:
    How many would not only leave but be willing to stand up and fight
    to protect the freedoms that many a good man died for in the past?
    
    				Ted

    re: .542  How many brave souls ...
    
    I think that there aren't really that many who would walk away from a
    good job on the first wave of drug testing.  But some will finally get
    the message when a friend or co-worker gets zapped, especially if it's
    under suspicious circumstances (zappee happens to be on the manager's
    sh*t list, political reasons, etc).  And the message will come through
    loud and clear when things like health insurance surcharges for those
    employees whose urine samples happen to reveal other problems, like
    incipient diabetes, or prostate problems, or whatever.  Even now
    certain firms are talking about genetic screening of new employees to
    eliminate those with possibilities of genetically-linked diseases like
    sickle-cell anemia.
    
    So much for "created equal" and "inalienable rights" ...
    
    Geoff
    
     

    Is .542 advocating physical resistance against the drug-testers?
    
    	:-)

    Not advocating physical resistance or violence, Most "battles" for
    rights and defense of The Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. happen
    in the courtroom today. However, the second admendment does give
    me right to bear arms to protect these rights from overaggresive,
    out of control zealots sp?
    						Ted

						NAME: Paul Henrion
                                                FUNC: LAW
                                                TEL: 223-5950


Subject: Federal Highway Admin. - Drug Testing

             ***********************************************
             THIS MEMO IS FROM JOHN GUNTHER AND PAUL HENRION
             ***********************************************

This is to alert you to the requirements of a new Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration regulation requiring drug
testing and education for certain of Digital's vehicle drivers, and to
request that you assign individuals in your organization the
responsibility for establishing a compliance program and obtaining
Executive Committee approval for it.

The regulation by its terms requires Digital, effective December 21,
1989, to implement:

A drug testing program for covered drivers (see below) consisting of
    random, reasonable cause, pre-employment, biennial and post-accident
    testing;

2.  An EAP program consisting primarily of driver and supervisory
    training;

3.  An after-care program, including follow-up testing for drivers who
    return-to-work after a positive test;

4.  A record keeping system; and

5.  A process for taking appropriate employment action for positive test
    results.

Affected personnel are employee drivers or certain contract drivers of
vehicles in U.S. interstate commerce:  weighing in excess of 26,000 lbs;
or carrying over 15 passengers including the driver; or carrying
hazardous materials requiring placarding.  Interstate commerce is broadly
defined in the regulation.  While we are still reviewing the intended
it is reasonably clear that at least Canada and Mexico will be
affected, and probably all U.S. Territories and Possessions, eg. Puerto
Rico.

Manufacturing will need to establish a compliance program, which will
work with the existing Corporate design groups (see attached) and obtain
Executive Committee approval per the new Personnel Policy.  Milagros
Tomei, Corporate Distribution Personnel Manager, and Jim Williams, U.S.
DOT Compliance Manager have already begun meeting with the Corporate
groups to begin driving DOT implementation.

As indicated above, the effective date for the program per the regulation
is December 21, 1989.  We have heard some rumors that DOT may delay this,
but a DOT official indicated today that there are no plans to do so.
There is also the question of the constitutionality of random and
post-accident testing, which is being reviewed in the courts.  We
recommend at this time, however, that the compliance effort proceed
assuming the current regulation sets forth the requirements.

Please let us know what individuals you have assigned the responsibility
establishing the compliance program and obtaining Executive Committee
approval.  We look forward to supporting the compliance effort.

Regards,


                               BACKGROUND
                                   ON
                         DIGITAL'S MANAGEMENT OF
                    DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS


The Company has been working on an overall drug program for many years,
and specifically reviewing the issue of drug testing for the last two
years, primarily in response to customer requests.  Last fall the
Drug-Free Workplace Act and Department of Defense Drug-Free Workforce
Regulation became law.  Certain programmatic activities are required of
U.S. government contractors including limited drug testing on classified
contracts.

Executive Committee chartered Corporate Employee Relations and the
Government Systems Group to design and implement a compliance plan to
avoid the loss of U.S. government business.  The design work is being
carried on by several task forces established by Erline Belton, Corporate
Employee Relations Manager, and Dave Burke, Government Policy Manager.

The Policy task force managed by John Doherty, Personnel Policy Manager,
after receiving Executive Committee approval published a new U.S. policy
in May, 1989, which indicates that any Digital drug testing program must
be approved by the Executive Committee.  Additionally, there is a drug
testing task force managed by Dr. Ross Myerson of Health Services, which
is in the process of contracting with external vendors for drug testing
services.  The EAP task force is managed by Bruce Davidson, Corporate EAP
Manager, and is in the process of creating an Employee Awareness Program
including supervisor and employee training.  Finally, the GSG
Implementation Task Force is chaired jointly by Cyndi Bloom, U.S. Field
ER Manager and Dave Burke, and will implement the GSG processes across
the company.

    

    Re .-1
    
    Wow. This is scary. The wedge gets thicker. Before it was the
    government saying:
    
    'You have to do drug testing if you want to do business with us'
    
    Now it is:
    
    'You have to do drug testing because if you don't you'll be breaking
     some DOT regulation, ie you WILL BE BREAKING THE LAW'
    
    What I ask is HOW THE HELL CAN THIS BE CONSTITUTIONAL. Isn't the US
    Bill of Rights worth the paper it is written on? Maybe my own countries
    constitution (the British one) is better after all, even though it is
    unwritten.
    
    I really feel for our drivers who will now be subject to random
    searches of their bodily fluids. Where will it end? I personally
    don't like people who are not too accurate when they piss in the
    bog. But I wouldn't dream of supporting a law that mandated the
    installation of close circuit television cameras in every loo.
    Would you?  This is no different than dug testing, they are both
    unwarranted invasions of privacy.
    
    Dave
    
    

To see how far hysteria has gone and common-sense and freedom have been lost;
A law was just passed giving federal drug agents the "right" to 

shoot-down any aircraft *SUSPECTED* of being involved in drug-trade.

The death penalty for suspicion of commiting a crime. 
Somebody asked if a noter was suggesting violence against the testors

Self-defence against a government run amok is more like it.

> The death penalty for suspicion of commiting a crime. 

So, what's new?  The police have always had limited rights to shoot
at fleeing suspects.  Debating whether it's appropriate for aircraft
that refuse to comply with "landing" orders (I'm sure that applies)
and where probable cause exists is interesting, but the underlying
theory isn't anything new.  The penalty is not for suspicion, but
rather for aggravated disobedience of a law officer's legal orders
under circumstances adjudged to be of serious potential consequence
to the public welfare.

That might be a bad judgement, but it's not a new theory of law.

I agree that society's response to the symptom of "drug abuse" is
hysterical (alcohol and nicotine remain the overwhelmingly more
directly damaging drugs), but the illness behind the symptom is
quite serious.

Government, like any management structure, inexhorably responds
to public perceptions and bottom lines.  Sometimes well, sometimes
not, rarely optimally.

- greg

	RE: last two. Let's keep to the subject as it relates to how
	Digital does business shall we? Thanks.

			Alfred

    I don't drive a truck for Digital, but if I did I would be extremely
    annoyed at this situation.  The courts are reviewing whether or not
    tests under certain circumstances are constitutional, but that isn't
    important---Digital is going to conform nonetheless.  That seems like
    what is arguably a constitutional right is being violated.
    
    The memo didn't say what would happen to truck drivers who refused
    to submit.  I hope that an effort will be made to find some other
    place for them in Digital.  I hope the "head-count freeze" rules
    will be relaxed for employees who must leave their current department
    because they refuse to take a drug test.
    
    For all of you who are not Digital truck drivers, remember that if DOT
    can do it to truck drivers, other departments can do it to other
    occupations.  Whatever you do for Digital, you may be next.
        John Sauter

    RE: .553
    
    To all digital employees:-  If you are a truck driver for digital and
    reading this conference, please raise your hand.
    
    - Vikas

re: .52

My apologies.  I thought the relevance was more obvious.  On re-reading
I saw it was not.

The constitutuion has never provided us with absolute privacy; only
with a promise of balancing the right of privacy against other needs.

Hence, I do not find the arguments that drug testing is automatically
anathema to the constitution compelling.  If drug use is perceived as
a clear and present danger to society then congress will pass laws to
contain that risk, law enforcement will enforce them, and the courts
absent better alternatives will almost certainly permit them.

That's about the situation today vis-a-vis drug testing and Digital.
It's safe to assume Digital will comply with the law until and unless
it is overturned.  Digital might lobby for a change, but is unlikely
to indulge in civil disobedience.

[These are predictions --- not comments on what might be right or wrong.]

So, the relevance to Digital is this:

	Could drug and alcohol use within Digital constitute
	a serious threat to society?   While I lean toward a
	"no" answer, it is getting harder to be really sure
	about this, especially as our products play a greater
	and greater role in the maintenance and protection of
	our society (whether we like it or not).

	If the answer is "yes", then how shall we address it?
	"Just say no" is a cute answer --- but it isn't really
	an answer at all is it?

	Relying upon degraded performance to occur in time for
	preemptive action (that is, before serious damage occurs)
	is worrisome; our society provides ample training in
	drug-detection avoidance even before high-school.  Our
	taboos and stigmas hide it futher.  And our national
	tolerance for mind-altering substances, conditioned by
	the fabled "failure" of prohibition, only make it worse.

	There are several other ways in which we are abdicating
	our power through irresponsibility and denial.

The problem isn't going to go away by itself.  What we are seeing
is only the smallest tip of the iceberg in terms of a governmental
and societal response.

Constantly falling back on tired constitutional arguments is
dangerously naive.  This is not to say that the guarantees of
the constituition should be capriciously laid aside; but it is
equally irresponsible to believe they are inviolate dogma.

I can't remember the quote --- something like:

	The price of freedom is constant vigilance

It probably referred to watching the perimeter originally, but it
can apply within as well.  Taken to an extreme it leads to totalitarianism,
but totally ignored it lead to the fall of the Roman Empire.  Forgive
the melodrama, but drugs are not a joke.

- greg

    re: .554
    
    Don't be too sure that no Digital truck drivers read this conference.
    Anyhow, my main point was that Digital truck drivers are no more
    deserving of unreasonable searchs than Digital computer programmers.
    
    re: .555---"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" brings to mind
    another quotation: "The tree of liberty must be watered by the blood
    of patriots".  I think "just say no" is a fine answer.
        John Sauter

    Somewhat (although not directly) along the lines of John Sauter's
    comments in .553, I wonder what would happen in the following
    circumstances? If any of you can help with facts on the background
    figures relative to this it might be useful.

    Approximately how many drivers do you suppose DEC has who are in
    volved in interstate trucking, transport of loads in excess of
    26,000 pounds, transport of more than 15 poassengers, and/or
    transport of hazardous materials? I know there is some number of
    DEC employees involved in these activities, but I don't know
    the magnitude of that number. Anyway, what if all of them were
    able to be assigned to other driving (or perhaps non-driving)
    duties and DEC were to make arrangements, before the DOT regulations
    go into effect in December, to ensure that all trucking under
    the categories above (I believe they were the ones specified by
    the DOT), were to be handled NOT be DEC employee drivers, but
    rather by outside common carrier transportation contractors?
    In that way, DEC would be able to avoid buckling to pressure on
    this onslaught without needing to subject any of its employees
    to making a choice as to whether or not they would submit to drug
    testing and set a precedent for violation of privacy and constitutional
    rights within DEC. Granted, the contracting drivers would be subject
    to the DOT reg's with their own employers, but that becomes a non-DEC
    issue, even if it is still a human rights issue.

    Any guesses as to whether this could work?

    -Jack

    "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety will ultimately have
    neither."
    
    	-Ben Franklin

    re .558,   I *think* uncle Ben was over ruled by the Supreme Court
    
    when they ruled that it was not 5th ammendment right to yell 'fire'
    in a theater.  Some liberty is sacrificed for safety.  
    
    So much for quotes.  There are some things in our modern times that
    even the founders could not have foreseen.  Thats why *they* provided
    for changes.
    
    #ed
    

    RE: .553  "show of hands"
    
>    To all digital employees:-  If you are a truck driver for digital and
>    reading this conference, please raise your hand.

    I'm not driving a truck, but I do drive a Digital Commuter Van between
    Massachusetts and New Hampshire every work day.  If the DOT requirement
    of "more than 15 passengers, including the driver" were revised
    downward by 1, it is conceivable that DEC vanpool drivers could
    be required to submit to random drug tests.  
    
    What if they decide that all people in carpools should be tested,
    or people that drive vehicles capable of speeds greater than 75 mph?
    55 mph? 40 mph?  With more than 4 wheels?  2 wheels?  People with
    freckles?  Blue eyes?  People who write code?  People who profess
    to understanding it?
                        

>          <<< Note 716.559 by WORDS::BADGER "One Happy camper ;-)" >>>
>                          -< what is a quote worth? >-
>
>    re .558,   I *think* uncle Ben was over ruled by the Supreme Court
>    
>    when they ruled that it was not 5th ammendment right to yell 'fire'
>    in a theater.  Some liberty is sacrificed for safety.  

Nope: the quote (from Justice Holmes) was that the 1st Amendement did
not give one the right to "falsely shout fire in a crowded theatre
and thereby cause a panic."

re. .554: change "15 passengers" to "14 passengers" and the Dec vanpool
drivers are included.

Martin.

    Re: the "None of us are truck drivers, so we don't have to worry"
    replies:
    The problem with this sort of mandate is that it tends to get
    generalized very quickly.  If there's no objection to the initial
    orders, how far is that from "Anyone driving a vehicle on the public
    roads for commercial purposes on behalf of Digital"?
    Doesn't that describe all plan-A cars?
    
    Lots more people involved now, eh?
    
    Besides, since when does the number involved have a bearing on
    whether it is the right thing to do?  If its only being done to
    you and to nobody else in the company, does that automatically make
    it right?
    
    Kevin

re:<<< Note 716.562 by RIPPLE::FARLEE_KE "Insufficient Virtual...um...er..." >>>

>    Re: the "None of us are truck drivers, so we don't have to worry"
>    replies:

    I'm sorry, Kevin, I don't recall having seen a response that said that.
    Can you cite a reply number?
    The closest I could recall was my .557 which was basically saying "What
    _if_ DEC excused themselves from this requirement by not having any truck
    drivers fitting the criteria?". Different issue, I think.

    Thanks,
    -Jack

>>> How far is that from "Anyone driving a vehicle on the public
>>> roads for commercial purposes on behalf of Digital"?
>>> Doesn't that describe all plan-A cars?
   
    
    Actually, I would guess that would include all Plan B and C cars
    too, since any expense that shows up on your expense report proves
    that you were in the car on behalf of Digital.  For ex, if I got killed
    while driving to/from a customer site, I assume it would be taken as dying
    with my boots on for Digital (so to speak).
    
    ....... Suchindran

    I was trying to find my earliest note on this topic but the response
    time is just too slow.  Suffices to say, that I had predicted that the
    drug testing will come to digital and will be started with employees
    who are not able to afford to be vocal and possibly can not really
    fight against.  I had thought that Digital will start with janitors but
    I was proved to be wrong.  Digital started its drug testing program
    with truck drivers.
    
    - Vikas

    Re .563,
    >    I'm sorry, Kevin, I don't recall having seen a response that said that.
    >   Can you cite a reply number?
        
    actually, My reply was in reference to .554, which said basically,
    
    "Get real, truck drivers don't read this conference.
    
    Any of you out there who are truck drivers, please reply to this
    note"
    
    I will admit to using a bit of hyperbole in my response, and if
    I've gotten the sense of Vikas's reply wrong then I apologise, but
    that is how it came across to me.
    
    Kevin

    Buried in the unspoken reasons for the truth of .565, lies the major
    cause of the 'problem' in the first place.
    
    As to the clear and present danger to the public: What if (to borrow
    a competitor's sentence starter) failure of our products was considered
    a public danger?  What if that's why those building the stuff (be
    it hard, firm or soft) are selected for testing?  What if it was
    found that errors are more likely to creep into code generated by
    IQs lower than 130?  What if 'they' found out that product engineers,
    like the DC9 pilots in Detroit, made more and more serious errors
    after a night of carousal?  What if it was shown that the designer
    with less sleep left things out?
    
    Would, for example, Mr. Robert, submit to:
       - Monitoring so he does not watch Letterman?
       - IQ test (now, not at hiring)?
       - Verification of celibacy?
    
    For those of you on the 'anyone who won't submit must be a user'
    kick, the reality is that excessive government CAUSES social problems.
    Governemtn intervention, therefore, can NOT solve them.
    
    As to the Digital environment & relevance, I was a simple servant
    before I came here.  If I wanted to stay one, I wouldn't have moved.
     Besides, it's hard enough to get my actual work done without having
    to worry about whether or not I'll pass the next
    drug/attitude/aptitude/intelligence/awareness/sanity/happiness/stress
    test.
    
    Don
    

re: .567

Don, if you read my note you'll see that I never said:

	We should test employees for drugs

	I would submit to such a test

	Refusal to submit is an indicator of guilt

What I said, put tersely was, "let's not play ostrich".

As it happens, I personally think that operators of nucleur installations
and weapons, mass transit, and other major hazardous systems such as
chemical plants should be required to give up any necessary rights and
submit to testing as a condition of employment.  I don't find it very
different from requiring that they submit to physical fitness examinations
which have long been standard (I had to do so to drive a school bus in
1968 ... made sense then, makes sense now).

In fact, it's not different at all; drug use _is_ a physical disability.

I do not wish to hound, persecute, stigmatize, or deprive such people
(everyone is disabled in some dimension) ... I think we as a society
and as humans should do everything possible to make their lives as
rich and contributory as possible.  But I don't want the pilot of my
plane to be high --- and I've no reluctance to require that pilot to
prove they do not use drugs.  I don't feel obligated to accept their
word for it, and I do not want airlines to react only "after the fact".

I don't know how I feel about truck drivers and software engineers, and
I don't know how grandfather situations (new rules _after_ you've established
your means of livelhood) should be handled.  But I certainly don't believe
that "no drug testing for any job" is a constitutional right in any way
whatsoever.

By the way, I don't know of any job that requires a minimum IQ, but I
have to suspect it would be pretty damn hard to get a pilot's license
with an IQ of 70.  Of course, that's not *really* IQ testing is it?

My point is that Digital has certain jobs that are near the line.
How near?  I don't know.  I'll bet if I had a wife and kids that
I'd start moving that line, for example, to include truck drivers.

There are many jobs open to people.  It is *reasonable* to make
fitness, including being drug free, a pre-requisite for certain
jobs.  It is not reasonable, at this time, to make it a pre-requiste
for all jobs.

- greg

    RE: .566 <Kevin>
       
>    if I've gotten the sense of Vikas's reply wrong then I apologise, but
>    that is how it came across to me.

    I am sorry that my intention did not come clear but my prior and
    subsequent replies to this topic should make it perfectly clear how I
    feel about this issue.  I feel that you got the sense of my reply
    completely wrong. However that is my fault for not making the sarcasm
    more explicit.  
    
    - Vikas

    Re: [.567 (Don Thompson)]:  I couldn't let this pass without comment:
    
    >> For those of you on the 'anyone who won't submit must be a user'
    >> kick, the reality is that excessive government CAUSES social problems.
    >> Governemtn intervention, therefore, can NOT solve them.
    
    If excessive government causes social problems, it follows that the
    problems didn't exist before government became excessive.  Are you
    willing to suggest that there was no drug problem before government
    attention turned to it?  Or that there was no poverty before welfare?
    
    Baloney!
    
    Now, if you just say, "government intervention cannot solve social
    problems," you'll get no argument from this terminal.  Despite the
    billions of dollars spent on the War on Poverty, the War on Crime, the
    War on Cancer, and the War on Drugs, we still have more than enough of
    each.  (Hey, at least we tried.)
    
    And whether there was a drug problem at Digital before the company
    began to consider drug testing is another good question.

    There seems to be strain of thought that people in life-threatining
    jobs should be drug free, that's good - but a bit hard to define
    I think.(The jobs that is).
    At DEC we don't have any people in those sort of jobs - and I would
    exclude our truckers if they're not going interstate (i.e. long
    haul). Our s/w types (including me) have their work tested (but
    not for drugs 8^) before it gets let loose so I don't see a problem
    there. I would think that the same goes for out h/w stuff too.
    Therefore, no chance of drugged workers harming anyone but themselves.
    The U.S. govt instituting these regulations on firms like DEC is
    just another example of treating the symptoms and not the cause.
    The effect on working for DEC wouldn't really be that the firm doesn't
    trust you - in no other terms at least it would be another level
    of (unpaid) bureauocracy - but that your govt doesn't. Nothing new
    there.
    
    (RE: America being the richest..capitalist etc...I think that should
     be past tense)
    
    M

There's a good reason that government treats symptoms and not causes.

The symptoms are what injure society.  The causes injure individuals.
While the causes _lead_ to societal injury they are usualy not viewed
as a "clear and present danger".

Hence the rights of privacy and liberty win out over governement
intervention in causes, but the public safety threat of symptoms
can trump individual rights when the consequenses are sufficiently
grave.

The liberal 60's and 70's gave us a taste of possible downsides
to governmental action on causes: the war on poverty being one.

The theory of government and society might not seem germane to
the topic, except that the topic is about Digital's interaction
with those bodies, so I think the context must be considered.

- greg

    re .570
    
    >If excessive government causes social problems, it follows that the
    >problems didn't exist before government became excessive.  Are you
    >willing to suggest that there was no drug problem before government
    >attention turned to it?  Or that there was no poverty before welfare?
    
    >Baloney!
    
    A rather strangely naive response, Steve.  There is no bad situation
    that a government or (attempt to keep this DEC specific) a large
    bureauracracy cannot make much worse!  As can be seen by many other
    topics and replies in this file.  
    
    The rest of the resonse I agree with.  So far, despite my question
    a few replies back, I STILL have not seen any information that would
    lead me to believe that general or random drug testing at Digital or 
    any other company would solve or even significantly mitigate the
    current (U.S.) societal problem with drug abuse.
    
    /Dave

    What percentage of the population takes prescription drugs, either
    temporarily or permanently?  Everyone?  Anyone concerned about this
    angle on the testing problem?  As the population ages and as medicine
    progresses, this eventually will become a concern to almost everyone. 

    Some of the other notes and replys indicate that many ordinary things
    indicate extraordinary things: How about legal prescriptions which
    MIGHT show up during testing and be misinterpreted? 

    Professional confidences of lawyers and physicians are points of law,
    not to be compromised.  Isn't mandatory drug testing by Dr #1 (not
    yours) which turns up "bad things" prescribed by Dr #2 (yours), but
    thought to be good by your physician a VERY sticky wicket?  Maybe even
    your physician (and you) recognize the POSSIBILITY of some side
    effects! 

    What if Dr #1 works for your employer and thinks a drug which he found
    will adversely affect your job (all shades of meaning here if you look
    at any pharmacopedia), but your doctor (and you) do not think so.  Dr
    #1 MAY be obligated to report it to your mutual employer; and, of
    course, that eventually means your boss (doesn't it?). Now, say you are
    over a deadline on a project (or anything with negative connotations
    businesswise) - the reasons may be entirely irrelevant to the drug test
    results and interpretation. 

    I do not care what avenues of communication are established to
    ameliorate inaccurate or misinterpreted drug testing results, I do not
    think the outcome of such a situation has a happy ending for ANYONE
    concerned, but guess who gets hurt the most?  Maybe that has to be
    inevitable, as usual. Pointing fingers tend to be sticky. 

    I am sure we can all dream up lots of other scenerios.  Am I being
    pessimistically paranoid? 

    Fred 

    PS:  Ok, I will put it on the line with a specific example. The medical
    profession claims something like 20-40% of the population should be
    treated for hypertension (high blood pressure) in one way or other
    including prescription drugs.  That's a lot of people.  Are you one?  I
    am. And I started after my current job.  U'h oh, I shouldn't have said
    that!  :-) ~~~ )-: ? 
    

    Forgive me since I don't wanna read all 500+ replies, but perhaps
    someone can explain some things to me that might make me understand
    the hugely negative reaction to drug testing.
    
    One, is the implied policies to test everyone for anything?  (Yes,
    I am aware that the Federal Government wants people connected with
    itself tested--therefore I would imagine any groups within digital
    with a Govt tie would be amongst those being tested).  
    
    Other than the Goverment issue, are the tests presumed to be random,
    or completly mandatory--OR are they aimed at employees who show
    considerable job performance deterioration where drug abuse is more
    than marginally suspected of being the reason?  Who are the tests
    supposed to be performed by?  Is someone really going to stand there
    and watch you pee?  (why not a blood test them?  I would think
    performance anxiety might just affect the quanity of a urine sample...)
    
    I understand that many of us take prescription drugs.  Are the tests
    able to determine between a prescription drug (which should NOT
    be affecting job performance to the degree where people have reasonable
    cause to think you are stoned out of your mind), and illegal drugs?
    If the tests can distinguish, at least to some degree, then you
    certainly should be able to provide a prescription and doctors note
    (so to speak) to prove yourself "clean".  
    
    I am NOT asking for a monologe on how awful or wonderful drug testing
    is.  I have my own beliefs on drug testing which I have put in the
    poll.  What I am trying to find out is just what "drug testing"
    means, at least in context of Digital.  I do not wish to get into
    the age hold debate of invasion of privacy vs. company rights to
    protect itself or what have you....thanks.   All that has been said
    before already.  :)
    
    Thanks,
    
    kim

    > If the tests can distinguish, at least to some degree, then you
    > certainly should be able to provide a prescription and doctors note
    > (so to speak) to prove yourself "clean".
    
    Assuming my job performance is acceptable, what business is it of
    Digital's whether or not I am taking prescription drugs, and if so,
    which ones?
    
    							Pat

Note 716.568                
STAR::ROBERT                                         

>drug use _is_ a physical disability.

No, drug use is not a physical disability.  Every person alive has taken
some kind of drug at some time.  The housewife who takes an asprin for a
headache does not have a physical disability.  Drug use and drug abuse are 
not the same thing and the refusal to recognize that fact is the basis of
the failure of the governments war on drugs.  


Note 716.570                
LEAF::JONG 

>    If excessive government causes social problems, it follows that the
>    problems didn't exist before government became excessive.  Are you
>    willing to suggest that there was no drug problem before government
>    attention turned to it?  Or that there was no poverty before welfare?

The violence and profit associated with the drug trade today increased
exponentially with governments attempts to contain it.

I am willing to suggest that drugs were not nearly as much of a problem
in the past as they are today, not because they were not as widely used 
but because drug laws have caused more problems than drug use.  Certainly
the profit made by drug cartels (and hence the violence generated) stems 
from drug laws and not from drug use.  

In the same vein, we have several generations of welfare recipients 
who know no other way of life and who grew up expecting to live on welfare 
as their parent did before them.  Government solutions have made certain 
social problems a permanent and accepted way of life and a permanent part 
of society.


>    And whether there was a drug problem at Digital before the company
>    began to consider drug testing is another good question.

Ask personnel what percentage of people have been fired for drug abuse and
you'll have the answer.  


Note 716.572                
STAR::ROBERT                                         

>The symptoms are what injure society.  The causes injure individuals.
>While the causes _lead_ to societal injury they are usualy not viewed
>as a "clear and present danger".

Society is made up of individuals.  A society is only as healthy, as educated, 
and as intelligent as the individuals that comprise it.  To fight the symptom 
and ignore the cause is an exercise in futility.  Its a waste of time and 
money and allows problems to grow beyond containment.  Our communist friends
are finding out that repression only allows problems to grow beyond the scope
of the very best efforts to resolve them.

Mary

>    Forgive me since I don't wanna read all 500+ replies

You're forgiven, especially since it provides an opportunity to restate some
things that have already been said.

>    One, is the implied policies to test everyone for anything?

The only program currently approved by the Executive Committee applies to
people working on certain government contracts.  So far it appears to be
only people working directly on the project, but is this just the nose of
the camel in the tent?

I fear it is.

The next step seems to be to require testing for truck drivers.

Who's next?

>    Other than the Goverment issue, are the tests presumed to be random,
>    or completly mandatory--OR are they aimed at employees who show
>    considerable job performance deterioration where drug abuse is more
>    than marginally suspected of being the reason?

To meet the government requirements, it appears that everyone must be tested.
Selection is done at random, so you can't prepare yourself.

>Is someone really going to stand there and watch you pee?

Yes.
    
>    I understand that many of us take prescription drugs.  Are the tests
>    able to determine between a prescription drug (which should NOT
>    be affecting job performance to the degree where people have reasonable
>    cause to think you are stoned out of your mind), and illegal drugs?

There are ways to test positive that have nothing to do with prescription drugs,
ways that cannot be explained.  Over-the-counter drugs, foods, being in the
wrong place at the wrong time.

	Poppy seed buns cause you to test positive for heroin.
	Sitting near someone smoking pot at a rock concert may cause you to test
	positive for marijuana.

Someone who prefers to remain anonymous mailed this to me:

                          ACCURACY OF DRUG TESTING

                In the process of drug testing, the following
       medication may test positive for the following drugs:

        Medication                              Appears To Be

1) Ibuprofen, Advil, Motrin, Rufen              marijuana

2) Fenoprofen, Nalfon,                          marijuana, amphetamine,
                                                barbiturates, benzodiazepines,
                                                methaqualone

3) Naproxen, Anaprox, Apo-Naproxen, Naprosyn,   marijuana
   Novonaprox

4) Ephedrine, Acet-AM, Amesec, Bronkaid,        amphetamine
   Bronkotabs, Ectasule Minus, Ephadrol,
   Marax, NyQuil, Quadrinal, Quelidrine,
   Quibron Plus, Tedral

5) Phenylopropanolamine, Alka Seltzer Plus,     amphetamine
   Allerest, Caldecon, 4-Way Nasal Spray, 
   Naldecom, Sinarest, Sine-Off, Sinubid, 
   Triaminicin, Triaminicol, Tussagesic

                The above is condensed from an article in the January,
       1987 issue of Playboy on Page 35.

    I was wondering if anybody noted down the results of the 
    National Poll conducted on the drug testing issue that 
    channel 7 (Boston, MS, USA, Earth) showed yesterday?  If
    I remember the main questions and the highest numbers then
    the question on,
       Whether an employee should be tested for drug?
       75% answer Yes.
    And the question,
       Can an employee be fired for refusing to take a test?
       55% answered Fair.
    
    The Poll conducting company's representative on TV also
    mentioned that the numbers for MA state are higher because
    of it being a relatively liberal state.

540>                                     ...The government now monitors
540>the amount that Lockheed spends on employee insurance
540>[and] ... *salaries* ...

541>This happens when you take on "cost plus" contracts.

I asked my friend about that this weekend.  He said that their contracts
(Lockheed Georgia) are seldom cost plus.  In fact, the largest contract
they've had, for the C5 Galaxy, was fixed priced.  Of course, there are more
Lockheed divisions around the country doing other things.  This is not to 
belabor the point, only to give an example of the lengths a contract junkie
will go to get his fix.

Regards,

David Tucker @ato

    Re. 576  
    
    Perhaps I did not make it clear, but I was speaking of drug testing
    on the basis that your job performance is NOT near par.  Not simply
    because Digital or any other company wants to simply see what
    prescription drugs you are taking.
    
    re. 578 
    
    Thanks for your replies--should I then infer that there IS no way
    for a drug test to differentiate between your basic "household"
    drugs and poppy seeds and illegal drugs?  I mean, if poppy seeds
    show up as marijuana....and does this apply to all drug tests? (ie,
    are there different kinds of testing?)
    
    Thanks again,
    
    kim

    < Note 716.579 by ULTRA::GONDA "DECelite: Pursuit of Knowledge, Wisdom, and Happiness." >

 >   I was wondering if anybody noted down the results of the 
 >   National Poll conducted on the drug testing issue that 
 >   channel 7 (Boston, MS, USA, Earth) showed yesterday?
    
    Kinda hard to answer your question if you aren't too sure of the
    polls results. What were the samples?
    Taking what your saying, I'd say that the DEC employees (the ones
    that participate in this topic at any rate) stance is something
    other than anachonistic. 
    
    M

re: .581

People tend to see what they want to see.  Drug tests used today - especially
the more elaborate secondary tests used to confirm a positive on the prelimi-
nary tests, are IN PRINCIPLE essentially immune to interference by drugs
other than what they are supposed to be testing for.  Playboy is (a) hardly a
standard of scientific reference; (b) proclaims support for legalization of
marihuana, so there is a question of bias; (c) out of date - the article cited
is over 2 years old, and this technology has advanced rapidly.

All that having been said, there is also a long way from "in principle" accuracy
attainable in a research lab and "in practice" accuracy attained by testing
organizations making money by doing tests as fast and as cheaply as possible.
For one thing, even a 100% accurate test will give bad results if the samples
tested get mixed up - which has been known to happen.

Finally, even if the tests were 100% accurate, I for one see little difference
in their moral acceptability.  A search is as much an invasion of privacy if
done by an experienced, accurate searcher as when done by an incompetent.

							-- Jerry

re: .577

Ok, make it drug abuse.  You knew what I meant, right?

    Re .584:
    
    > Ok, make it drug abuse.  You knew what I meant, right?

    How could somebody know?  Too many people don't know the difference;
    how was somebody else to know if you did or not?  That ignorance is a
    major cause of the current destruction of human rights. 
    
    
    				-- edp 

re: .585

It was obvious from context.  Let's get back to the subject.

    No, it wasn't obvious from context and it is the subject.  
   
     The refusal to differentiate between drug use and drug abuse is what 
    drug testing is all about.  
    
    The drug abuser is obvious, his abuse causes problems that effect his 
    ability to function in all or most areas of his life.  
    
    The drug user is subtle,  his use does not cause him any problems (or
    few that he can't control) and that is why the government has to
    resort to testing his blood and/or urine.  Because unless his bodily 
    fluids are tested, there is no way to tell that he uses drugs.
    
    Is controlling the personal behavior of the user worth all of the
    money, violence, elimination of individual rights, and the neglect
    of genuine social issues to concentrate on this single issue?
    Many Americans do not think so.  There is no consensus on this question
    and therefore there is no support for drug testing.  
    
    Drug testing doesn't spot the abuser... it doesn't have to... the
    abuser is easy to spot...  he is sleeping in doorways and collecting 
    welfare.  He cannot function in society.
    
    Drug testing is aimed at the user.  The user is paying taxes,
    supporting his family, working and minding his own business.  He
    functions fine, he just doesn't alter his behavior to suit current
    political social engineering.
    
    It may all be a moot point of course if the Colombian drug cartels
    start taking the war on drugs to Washington and begin assassinating
    American politicians instead of Colombian politicians.  Then it
    will be too late, even legalization may not stop it.  
    
    Combine that with anarchy, violence and chaos (such as the race
    wars happening in New York City right now) rising fast due to the 
    neglect of genuine social problems for the past ten years and to
    the increase of poverty and we have a truly dangerous situation
    and not just political rhetoric.  

        Re: .587

>    Drug testing doesn't spot the abuser... it doesn't have to... the
>    abuser is easy to spot...  he is sleeping in doorways and collecting 
>    welfare.  He cannot function in society.

        Most of the drug abusers in this country don't fall into this
        category.  They aren't homeless and they hold jobs, but they are
        dependent on drugs and their drug use affects their entire life. 
        Drug abusers who haven't dropped out of society are a
        significant cause of, among other things, industrial accidents.

        In many cases they are easy to spot at work, to someone trained
        to look for the symptoms.  Drug testing isn't necessary to find
        (and help) most abusers, testing is just an easy way for a
        government/business to address the problem.  A much better
        solution is to offer help to those who show signs of drug abuse.

        And in any case, most drug abusers are using alcohol as their
        drug of choice--but testing for alcohol isn't done because it
        would catch too many `respectable' people.

        					B.J.

        
Note 716.588
ULTRA::HERBISON
    
    
    >    Most of the drug abusers in this country don't fall into this
    >    category.  They aren't homeless and they hold jobs, but they are
    >    dependent on drugs and their drug use affects their entire life. 
    
    A true abuser cannot function normally within society.  He cannot
    hold a job and maintain an apartment or home.  His family falls
    apart and his career falls apart.  Today everyone is classified
    as an abuser or something... even computers are said to be addictive
    and a man has been sentenced to rehabilitation for computer addiction.
    There is no sense of balance or priority anymore.  No sense of personal
    responsibility.  
    
    There are advantages in blurring the lines between use and abuse
    today... there is a lot of money to be made in this field...  more
    money is being spent on various aspects of the war on drugs (including
    new prisons, the training of additional police, DEA, correction
    officers, money spent fighting the WOD in foreign countries) than
    on any other social issue.
    
    There are many institutions making a lot of money these days by
    rehabilitating substance abusers.  Middle class High School kids
    who get caught smoking a joint are now involuntarily committed to
    treatment centers .....  until the insurance money runs out that
    is.  Treatment Centers end up getting twenty thousand or so, the kid 
    ends up with a disrupted education and life and the idea that he isn't 
    normal and can't function, while the insurance industry ends up
    raising rates for legitimate health problems.  
    
    Certainly there are legitimate cases for treatment centers but today 
    just about anyone (who has insurance or parents who have insurance) 
    qualifies.  No wonder the health system is such a mess.
    
    >    Drug abusers who haven't dropped out of society are a
    >    significant cause of, among other things, industrial accidents.
     
    Got some source for this statement?  CNN had a program on industrial safety
    recently.  Seems as though workers don't have much protection these
    days and the safety laws that do exist are not enforced.  Drugs
    are the easy target... whether an industry is at fault or not,
    substance abuse by workers can be blamed.  Wasn't that what Exxon
    did to the captain of the Valdez?  The retraction came out months
    later.   Certainly there is some truth to this but not as much as
    we have been led to believe.
    
       > In many cases they are easy to spot at work, to someone trained
       > to look for the symptoms.  
    
    Tell me, what are the symptoms of someone who has used LSD within
    the last month?  What are the symptoms of someone who has smoked
    pot within the last two weeks?  What are the symptoms of someone who
    has used ecstasy or mushrooms within the last week?  Do you know?
    Does anyone?  That statement simply isn't true.
    
    >Drug testing isn't necessary to find (and help) most abusers, testing 
    >is just an easy way for a government/business to address the
    >problem.  A much better solution is to offer help to those who show
    >signs of drug abuse.
     
    Testing is the only way to identify users of certain substances
    (whether the government is interested in 'helping' them or not is a matter 
    of opinion of course).
    
    >    And in any case, most drug abusers are using alcohol as their
    >    drug of choice--but testing for alcohol isn't done because it
    >    would catch too many `respectable' people.

     To tell you the truth, I have grave misgivings as to what is actually
    being tested for.  Blood and urine tests can spot pregnancies in
    women, some cancers, heart problems, AIDS and numerous other health problems
    that could be expensive to the company providing benefits.    
    Blood and urine tests could be used to screen potential employees for 
    future health problems by health care providers as well... good
    way to increase the profit margin and keep costs down.    
                               

    > What are the symptoms of someone who has used ecstasy or mushrooms
    > within the last week?  
    
    What is ecstasy and mushrooms?

    re .589

>    A true abuser cannot function normally within society.  He cannot
>    hold a job and maintain an apartment or home.  His family falls
>    apart and his career falls apart.  Today everyone is classified
>    as an abuser or something... even computers are said to be addictive
>    and a man has been sentenced to rehabilitation for computer addiction.

    Oh, come on. The nice thing about language is that you can use (or
    abuse) it to your "benefit".

    If you choose to define "abuser" as one who "cannot function normally
    within society", then you are correct.  By your definition, an
    alcoholic who still has a job and (watch out) a driver's license is not
    an abuser of alcohol. This is patently absurd. It's like saying we're
    not abusing the ozone layer because there still are some people who
    haven't died of skin cancer. It's the kind of definition that defers
    any treatment or correction action until it's far too late. You can
    drive sixty miles an hour directly at a cliff, but until your tires
    leave the pavement, there's no problem, right?

        Re: .589 (Re: my .588)
        
        I'm not sure why your response is so strong.  We seem to agree
        on many things, but you seem to be responding to claims that are
        much stronger than the statements I made.

>    A true abuser cannot function normally within society.  He cannot
>    hold a job and maintain an apartment or home.  His family falls

        This is a new and different definition of `abuser' with which
        I was not previously aware.

>    Certainly there are legitimate cases for treatment centers but today 

        You go on for quite a while about treatment centers, but I
        didn't mention them.  I said help them and I agree with
        you--sending someone off to a treatment center is usually not
        the best way to help someone with a drug abuse problem.

>    >    Drug abusers who haven't dropped out of society are a
>    >    significant cause of, among other things, industrial accidents.
>     
>    Got some source for this statement?  CNN had a program on industrial safety
>...
>    later.   Certainly there is some truth to this but not as much as
>    we have been led to believe.

        I have no citations handy (I don't keep reports like that in my
        library).  Again, I agree with you--workers are blamed by
        industry more than they should be.  But the fact that drug abuse
        is frequently falsely claimed doesn't mean that the proportion
        of industrial accidents cause by drug abuse is insignificant.

>       > In many cases they are easy to spot at work, to someone trained
>       > to look for the symptoms.  
>    
>    Tell me, what are the symptoms of someone who has used LSD within
>    the last month?  What are the symptoms of someone who has smoked
>    pot within the last two weeks?  What are the symptoms of someone who
>    has used ecstasy or mushrooms within the last week?  Do you know?
>    Does anyone?  That statement simply isn't true.

        There is a big difference between `being able to spot many 
        cases of substance abuse' and `being able to identify cases
        of substance abuse and determine the substance involved'.  
        You seemed to believe I said the latter, but I actually said 
        the former.

        It is possible to look for general characteristics of substance
        abuse in people by observing their behavior--especially if we
        take your definition of substance abuse.

        					B.J.