| Title: | Soapbox. Just Soapbox. |
| Notice: | No more new notes |
| Moderator: | WAHOO::LEVESQUE ONS |
| Created: | Thu Nov 17 1994 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 862 |
| Total number of notes: | 339684 |
Should companies be allowed to test current or prospective employees
for the use of illicit drugs, or the abuse of legal drugs?
Which testing methods should be considered acceptable or intrusive?
Who ensures the privacy - if any - of test results?
Should they be allowed to fire or refuse to hire people who will not
submit to testing?
Should certain professions, such as pilots or bus drivers, be singled
out for drug testing?
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 454.1 | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150kts is TOO slow! | Thu Jun 08 1995 18:47 | 24 | |
> Should companies be allowed to test current or prospective employees
> for the use of illicit drugs, or the abuse of legal drugs?
Not without probable cause.
> Which testing methods should be considered acceptable or intrusive?
Unknown.
> Who ensures the privacy - if any - of test results?
Currently, nobody as far as I can tell.
> Should they be allowed to fire or refuse to hire people who will not
> submit to testing?
No.
> Should certain professions, such as pilots or bus drivers, be singled
> out for drug testing?
Not without probable cause.
Bob
| |||||
| 454.2 | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA member | Thu Jun 08 1995 18:52 | 4 | |
What Bob said.
| |||||
| 454.3 | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Reformatted to fit your screen | Thu Jun 08 1995 18:54 | 26 | |
> Should companies be allowed to test current or prospective
> employees for the use of illicit drugs, or the abuse of legal drugs?
NO
> Which testing methods should be considered acceptable or intrusive?
Acceptable - NONE, Intrusive - ALL
> Who ensures the privacy - if any - of test results?
MOOT POINT
> Should they be allowed to fire or refuse to hire people who will
> not submit to testing?
NO
> Should certain professions, such as pilots or bus drivers, be
> singled out for drug testing?
NO
Brian
| |||||
| 454.4 | If you want a job | TLE::PERARO | Thu Jun 08 1995 18:56 | 6 | |
Most companies do this now. When my husband interviewed for his new
job, he was required to have a pre-employment physical and a drug test.
His offer letter stated it.
| |||||
| 454.5 | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Trouble with a capital 'T' | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:01 | 9 | |
Instead of everyone replying with a series of "no's", why not
just reply with a title of "ditto"? Saves time for you and
everyone reading.
And FWIW, if you're not using drugs you have nothing to hide.
If you are using drugs you should be thrown in the slammer any-
ways.
| |||||
| 454.6 | Just say "No" | ALPHAZ::HARNEY | John A Harney | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:05 | 36 |
| 454.7 | Notes collision with .6 | TROOA::COLLINS | IYNSHO, NNTTM, YMMV, HTH | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:06 | 23 |
On the subject of testing methods:
The urine test is, of course, the most popular, but involves a
violation of privacy to ensure the accuracy of the sample (someone
has to watch you pee).
The blood test would be the most intrusive, I would imagine.
There is also a test that can be done on hair strands or fingernail
clippings, and can detect use for as far back as the hair strand
is long (weeks, months, perhaps years). This would be the least
intrusive in terms of providing the sample, but provides a brutally
honest history of your personal life over a long period of time.
Also, there are a variety of ordinary substances, like poppy seeds
and cold remedies, that cause false-positive results.
And, of course, there's no telling just *what* the samples are being
tested for over and above drug use.
jc
| |||||
| 454.8 | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:09 | 13 | |
.5
> And FWIW, if you're not using drugs you have nothing to hide.
Unless one of the drugs being checked for is alcohol and the testing is
being done with a Breathalyyzer and you ate lunch at May Ling's. MSG
causes false positives.
Any and all drug testing is invasive and, unless probable cause is
present, a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. The fact that drug testing is permitted without
probable cause is yet one more example of the erosion of the rights of
American citizens "for the good of all."
| |||||
| 454.9 | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Reformatted to fit your screen | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:09 | 3 | |
<---- Really Shawn? You believe that comment about being in the
slammer?
| |||||
| 454.10 | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:12 | 3 | |
and what if the "probable cause" is a train-full of dead people?
| |||||
| 454.11 | TROOA::COLLINS | IYNSHO, NNTTM, YMMV, HTH | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:22 | 16 | |
Note 454.6
>...our employment is an agreement between us and our employer.
>If a condition of that agreement is that I pee in a bottle, it's my
>choice to take the job.
I disagree, since (IMHO) the agreement extends only to the hours of
the day I spend working for the employer, and the tests cover hours
other than those.
If employers are not prevented by law from doing this, then they will
all jump on the bandwagon, and my "choice" disappears.
jc
| |||||
| 454.12 | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Trouble with a capital 'T' | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:24 | 9 | |
RE: John
So I guess you'll have to plan your "bong sessions" such that
you'll have "come down" by the time you get back to work.
If you have drugs in your system there's a good chance they're
still having an effect on you.
| |||||
| 454.13 | TROOA::COLLINS | IYNSHO, NNTTM, YMMV, HTH | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:28 | 7 | |
Shawn,
Read .6, thanks.
jc
| |||||
| 454.14 | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:32 | 1154 | |
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.
| |||||
| 454.15 | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Trouble with a capital 'T' | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:32 | 10 | |
I did, but I'll read it again.
[Reads .6 again.]
> If you have drugs in your system there's a good chance they're
> still having an effect on you.
OK, or maybe not. 8^)
| |||||
| 454.16 | TROOA::COLLINS | IYNSHO, NNTTM, YMMV, HTH | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:36 | 10 | |
Shawn,
Thank you. Now then, I've arranged for the FBI, DEA and BATF, as well
a Digital's Corporate Security, to thoroughly search your home tonight.
I'm sure you have nothing to hide, eh?
:^)
| |||||
| 454.17 | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:38 | 3 | |
Aaaaahhh.... drug testing??? That probably would be fewer entries
here!:) (using my best Rev. Jim voice)
| |||||
| 454.18 | ? | NEMAIL::BULLOCK | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:40 | 11 | |
re .7
Is that really true....?? Does a person have to witness another
person while urinating to validate the test? What if they want
to observe you through a "peep hole"? What happens if prior to
urinating,.......I hear uncontrollable laughter??
Ed
| |||||
| 454.19 | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:43 | 48 | |
> Should companies be allowed to test current or prospective employees
> for the use of illicit drugs, or the abuse of legal drugs?
For positions which included responsibility for the safety/lives of
other people, yes. "Allowed" in the sense that it can be a job
requirement. Refusal to participate can be a termination offense.
Otherwise, companies have no way to shield themselves from liability
exposure of employees who are careless with such responsibility.
> Which testing methods should be considered acceptable or intrusive?
Any testing method which does not permit the employee to
arrange for simultaneous testing of samples by an independent
lab is unacceptable.
> Who ensures the privacy - if any - of test results?
One of the biggest problems, in my opinion. Companies do not have the
power to withhold evidence subpeonaed by the courts; and thus the
government can take from your employer what it cannot compel from the
individual. Not to mention the 'related info' angles; testing for drug
use does NOT give the employer the ability to preemptively fire or
restrict a worker who turns out to be pregnant, or ill; but that
information may be furnished in the lab report. How can the employer
argue that they did not act upon such related information? Finally,
the health insurance aspects bother me; if such testing reveals a
treatable medical condition, is the employer bound to inform the
employee? Systemically, such disclosures might increase the cost of
employer-paid medical insurance, thus, they have a vested interest in
not disclosing such. On the flip side, medical insurers may refuse to
sign people up for pre-existing conditions when the insurers know of
test results that employees consider private, or may not even know
about.
Clearly, many legal safeguards are lacking in this area.
> Should they be allowed to fire or refuse to hire people who will not
> submit to testing?
Only for positions requiring responsibility for safety of others.
> Should certain professions, such as pilots or bus drivers, be singled
> out for drug testing?
I prefer the stipulation above. Those professions are included, as
well as it providing clear criteria for new cases.
DougO
| |||||
| 454.20 | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150kts is TOO slow! | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:44 | 7 | |
re: .18 It depends how certain you want to be that a given sample actually came from the subject. There are cases of people smuggling in known 'clean' urine samples for tests. Bob | |||||
| 454.21 | Re: .18 | TROOA::COLLINS | IYNSHO, NNTTM, YMMV, HTH | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:44 | 5 |
If no-one witnesses the peeing, than the validity of the sample
(which could be a `clean' sample provided by a `friend') cannot
be proven.
| |||||
| 454.22 | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:48 | 1 | |
Unless there's blood in the urine. Then DNA testing would work. | |||||
| 454.23 | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Trouble with a capital 'T' | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:50 | 13 | |
>Thank you. Now then, I've arranged for the FBI, DEA and BATF, as well
>a Digital's Corporate Security, to thoroughly search your home tonight.
>
>I'm sure you have nothing to hide, eh?
Send 'em in!!
[Oops, don't!! I just remembered that I swiped one of those
"No smoking" signs out of the bathroom to put in my own bath-
room!! 8^)]
| |||||
| 454.24 | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:51 | 53 | |
Re .5:
> And FWIW, if you're not using drugs you have nothing to hide.
Did the Washington, DC, police department employees have nothing to
hide? Some of them were denied promotions because they were pregnant,
which the department found by doing surreptitious tests.
Does a person with a legal prescription for anti-depressants have
nothing to hide?
Does the person who uses weight-loss pills not have the right to keep
that confidential?
Do the victims of false positives have nothing to hide?
Is there no value to privacy? Tell me, are you ashamed of how you
vote? If not, why do you close the voting booth curtain when you vote?
What do you have to hide?
Might the shop owner want to hide his home number so that inconsiderate
customers will not call during off hours? Or does his desire to hide
indicate criminal activity? Should the police investigate everybody
who hides their phone number by having it unlisted or unpublished?
Do you suspect illicit activity when a woman refuses to disclose her
weight, or do you honor her right to privacy? If you will allow her to
remain silent about her weight, why will you not allow her to urinate
in privacy?
If you have nothing to hide, why do you close the curtains in your
bedroom? What, besides privacy, does that gain you?
> If you are using drugs you should be thrown in the slammer anyways.
Why should people with prescriptions for anti-depressants be thrown in
the slammer?
Why should people who use allergy medicine be thrown in the slammer?
Why should people who take cold medicine be thrown in the slammer?
Why should people who take diet pills be thrown in the slammer?
If drugs are so bad, why has Digital installed twenty or thirty drug
stations in ZKO, including a specially ventilated segregation room?
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
| |||||
| 454.25 | SUBSYS::NEUMYER | Love is a dirty job | Thu Jun 08 1995 19:59 | 5 | |
re .10 and the train load of dead people.
That's the price of living in a FREE society.
ed
| |||||
| 454.26 | TROOA::COLLINS | IYNSHO, NNTTM, YMMV, HTH | Thu Jun 08 1995 20:01 | 6 | |
Yeah, Andy...people who will sacrifice freedom for security etcetera
etcetera...
;^)
| |||||
| 454.27 | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Thu Jun 08 1995 20:02 | 3 | |
.10/.25 Such a deal!!! Free death from a druggest!! Get on that train
to death and the life here after!! God! Aint America wounderful!:)
| |||||
| 454.28 | .24 | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Passhion | Thu Jun 08 1995 20:05 | 4 |
What are these drug stations of which you speak?
| |||||
| 454.29 | BOXORN::HAYS | Some things are worth dying for | Thu Jun 08 1995 20:05 | 1 | |
Smoking rooms. | |||||
| 454.30 | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jun 08 1995 20:05 | 1 | |
Coffee stations. | |||||
| 454.31 | WECARE::GRIFFIN | John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159 | Thu Jun 08 1995 20:05 | 2 | |
I'll bet he's talking about coffee.
| |||||
| 454.32 | coffee AND cigarettes, I'll bet | TROOA::COLLINS | IYNSHO, NNTTM, YMMV, HTH | Thu Jun 08 1995 20:16 | 1 |
| 454.33 | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jun 08 1995 20:19 | 1 | |
Cigareets and whiskey and wild wild women... | |||||
| 454.34 | TROOA::COLLINS | IYNSHO, NNTTM, YMMV, HTH | Thu Jun 08 1995 20:20 | 5 | |
Wild Women stations? Zounds!!
How do they test for that?
| |||||
| 454.35 | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Trouble with a capital 'T' | Thu Jun 08 1995 20:23 | 93 | |
Well, I don't usually do this, but in honor of former employee
Peter Cook [whose band is playing at The Zone in Mendon MA, on
Rte. 16 in front of the Drive-In, this Sunday, 5-10PM, $6 admis-
sion 8^)], here goes:
>> And FWIW, if you're not using drugs you have nothing to hide.
>
>Did the Washington, DC, police department employees have nothing to
>hide? Some of them were denied promotions because they were pregnant,
>which the department found by doing surreptitious tests.
Is it illegal to be pregnant? What does pregnancy have to do
with drug testing? [There could very well be something you've
omitted from this statement, but since I'm not aware of the
situation then this is all I have to go on.]
>Does a person with a legal prescription for anti-depressants have
>nothing to hide?
How many were taken by that person? Did an overdose contribute
to any work-related problems?
>Does the person who uses weight-loss pills not have the right to keep
>that confidential?
Is this a trick question? Fourth Amendment or something? My
answer is, of course, "Who cares?". Is it that embarrassing to
know that others know you take pills for weight loss?
>Do the victims of false positives have nothing to hide?
If drug testing saves just 1 life ... you know the rest.
>Is there no value to privacy? Tell me, are you ashamed of how you
>vote? If not, why do you close the voting booth curtain when you vote?
>What do you have to hide?
When I vote, which is very rarely, I don't close the curtain.
>Might the shop owner want to hide his home number so that inconsiderate
>customers will not call during off hours? Or does his desire to hide
>indicate criminal activity? Should the police investigate everybody
>who hides their phone number by having it unlisted or unpublished?
Why not use "shop employee" in place of "shop owner" and "shop
owner" in place of "customer" and it might be more relevant. And
the answer to the 1st question would then be "Yes, but he should
not". And I'm not going to bother with the rest.
>Do you suspect illicit activity when a woman refuses to disclose her
>weight, or do you honor her right to privacy? If you will allow her to
>remain silent about her weight, why will you not allow her to urinate
>in privacy?
I think the whole "weight thing" is ridiculous ... geez, just by
looking at someone it's not that difficult to estimate weight at
no more than a 5% error rate. So I don't ask.
>If you have nothing to hide, why do you close the curtains in your
>bedroom? What, besides privacy, does that gain you?
Alot less light coming through the window so I can keep the sun
out of my eyes while I'm sleeping.
>> If you are using drugs you should be thrown in the slammer anyways.
>
>Why should people with prescriptions for anti-depressants be thrown in
>the slammer?
>Why should people who use allergy medicine be thrown in the slammer?
>Why should people who take cold medicine be thrown in the slammer?
>Why should people who take diet pills be thrown in the slammer?
Alright, so I was kidding about the slammer part [really].
>If drugs are so bad, why has Digital installed twenty or thirty drug
>stations in ZKO, including a specially ventilated segregation room?
Silly me ... if Digital does this then drugs MUST be OK.
And I know you're not going to like this [and I have a good idea
what your response will look like if there is one], but out of
the 58 hours in the week that you don't spend working, commuting
or sleeping, how many are spent reading through law books and
newspapers to monitor the newest tactics that the government has
devised to screw you out of your constitutional rights?
| |||||
| 454.36 | People are too clever for this. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Thu Jun 08 1995 20:26 | 11 | |
This always struck me as pretty much a joke. Unless you do random
drug testing during employment, the druggies will figure a way to
slither through your test.
So only organizations (like governments) which have political
motivations would ever go through this charade. The can say,
"All of our subcontractoes are drug-free, as defined by HR666,
section 666, paragraph 666. Blah, blah, blah."
bb
| |||||
| 454.37 | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Thu Jun 08 1995 20:38 | 12 | |
re: .25
Ah... I see.... and if one of your loved ones was of the "dead people"
variety, you'd still feel the same?
Suppose there were (random number here) 50 people killed, including
the trainman who was high at the time...
Let's see.... 50 wrongful death lawsuits oughta put whatever railroad
it is right out of business.... no?
| |||||
| 454.38 | I pee on command but don't like it | AIMTEC::MORABITO_P | Hotlanta Rocks | Thu Jun 08 1995 21:34 | 14 |
I recently interviewed for a job outside of DEC and was offered the job. The offer was contigent on me passing a drug test and they had to validate my degree and check references. So I had to go for a physical and they had me pee. I wasn't too thrilled with this. By coincidence the day before I had a regular physical scheduled. I asked them to check my urine just in case the test came back negative. Both came back okay, but I kind of felt uneasy about it. More and more companies appear to be doing it. I talked to someone that knew someone that had to have a lock of their hair examined by a lab when they were applying for a job. Apparently cocaine shows up in hair somehow. When I was in the military (where you have no rights at all) I had to take a urine test because I got in an argument with a pilot. Paul | |||||
| 454.39 | ASDG::GASSAWAY | Insert clever personal name here | Thu Jun 08 1995 22:05 | 8 | |
I'm not sure if this is still a policy, but when I started here at
Digital I had to have a pregnancy test performed. I was working in the
fab and since pregnant women can't be in the fab, I had to prove I
wasn't before I could start. I think they've changed this.
I was also drug-tested at the INTERVIEW for a different company.
Lisa
| |||||
| 454.40 | TROOA::COLLINS | IYNSHO, NNTTM, YMMV, HTH | Thu Jun 08 1995 23:57 | 15 | |
So Andy...you agree with DougO then about testing people in jobs
where lives are at stake.
What about those in a bank, who deal with large sums of money?
What about jobs where gov't or corporate secrets are involved?
What about your job?
You tend to be a `get the gov't off my back' type. Is it different if
a private company is doing the intruding?
jc
| |||||
| 454.41 | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Jun 09 1995 00:31 | 18 | |
re: Do they have to watch you pee? I seem to recall suggesting in topic 716 in DIGITAL years ago, that it would serve the observer right if the test subject had some sort of spasm or very poor aim. "Oh, PARdon ME!" Either that or arrive at the test with both hands in casts of some sort. "Well - I'll need some help with that." Then develop the bad aim. re: General I can never quite figure out why outfits like Computer City and the like put up these big signs at their entrances proclaiming their pride that they are a drug-free workplace and that they test all of their employees. Frequently upon leaving places like this, if I'm not buying anything anyway, I mention on the way out that there was a mjor purchase I might have made but that I declined in opposition to their drug testing policy. If these people get the message often enough that they aren't necessarily being admired for their efforts, it just might sink in. | |||||
| 454.42 | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Repetitive Fan Club Napping | Fri Jun 09 1995 00:37 | 2 | |
So, if a company only wants to hire the whiz kids, what would this
mean?
| |||||
| 454.43 | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Passhion | Fri Jun 09 1995 00:55 | 2 | |
Urine big trouble for starting this, little buddy 8^).
| |||||
| 454.44 | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Repetitive Fan Club Napping | Fri Jun 09 1995 00:58 | 1 | |
<---- I wish _I_ had said that. | |||||
| 454.45 | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Passhion | Fri Jun 09 1995 01:15 | 3 | |
You will, Glenn, you will.
| |||||
| 454.46 | 2 p's worth | SMURF::WALTERS | Fri Jun 09 1995 12:54 | 5 | |
> Urine big trouble for starting this, little buddy 8^).
But he would not be convicted by a jury of his peers.
(credit to Paul Simon)
| |||||
| 454.47 | SUBSYS::NEUMYER | Love is a dirty job | Fri Jun 09 1995 13:11 | 8 | |
Re .37
If one of the dead people was a loved one, I would feel the same
way about random drug testing! I would probably go and kill the person
responsible however.
ed
| |||||
| 454.48 | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Fri Jun 09 1995 13:25 | 8 | |
<------
Only in America!!!!
Right???
| |||||
| 454.49 | I'll bag groceries first | DECWIN::RALTO | C3PO and R2D2 in '96 | Fri Jun 09 1995 14:42 | 13 |
Even though I don't use drugs, I would never submit to such a test
for any job including my current one. It's outrageously insulting,
undignified, and completely irrelevant. It's yet-another thing that
control freaks do just because they can, and because people submit to
it. If enough of us would "just say no", this would go away fast.
It's strange in retrospect that when Digital set out to reduce its
headcount, rather than go through the expense, etc., of TFSO's,
they didn't simply institute drug testing. Some substantial
percentage would have quit right then and there. Probably not
enough for their purposes, but it would have been a start.
Chris
| |||||
| 454.50 | EST::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Fri Jun 09 1995 15:22 | 4 | |
It's just one more way WE are the losers in the War on Some Drugs. For a long time, I thought the quote was "Trade freedom for security, lose both". It's true. | |||||
| 454.51 | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Fri Jun 09 1995 17:35 | 92 | |
Re .35:
> Is it illegal to be pregnant? What does pregnancy have to do
> with drug testing? [There could very well be something you've
> omitted from this statement, but since I'm not aware of the
> situation then this is all I have to go on.]
Consider I wrote that some employees were denied promotions because
they were pregnant, which the department found by doing surreptitious
tests, what do you think was omitted? The employees were ordered to
give samples for drug testing; the samples were tested for pregnancy.
Those employees had something to hide: pregnancy. Pregnancy is not
illegal BUT IT WAS USED AGAINST THEM. That's one thing about privacy
many people don't understand: Just because something isn't illegal
doesn't mean you don't have reason to hide it. So your statement that
if somebody isn't using drugs, they don't have something to hide is
false. There are many reasons to hide things: Hide pregnancy because
an employer will deceitfully use it against you. Hide your home phone
number because rude people will call you. Hide your weight because it
is embarassing. Hide your vote because it prevents people from
pressuring you to change it.
> How many were taken by that person? Did an overdose contribute
> to any work-related problems?
The hypothetical person took exactly the amount modestly prescribed by
a doctor. No overdose contributed to any work-related problems. But
the drug test won't show that; it will merely show they used a
controlled substance. Does that person have nothing to hide?
Consider that there have been no work-related problems, so what's the
point of the drug test for this person? If there were work-related
problems, why would the employer not deal with them in spite of having
or not having a drug test?
> Is this a trick question? Fourth Amendment or something? My
> answer is, of course, "Who cares?". Is it that embarrassing to
> know that others know you take pills for weight loss?
Yes, for some people it is. And the answer to "Who cares?" is that the
person whose job is on the line cares. Is the degree of embarrassment
your decision to make or is it theirs?
> If drug testing saves just 1 life ... you know the rest.
If drug testing saves just 1 life . . . it is worth it only if the COST
is worth less than one life. Why do we continue to drive cars even
though they cost tens of thousands of lives in this country each year?
Because the cost of not driving cars is greater than the cost of lives
lost. We're not willing to accept the degradation in quality of life
that would happen if we all gave up driving. Similarly, drug testing
degrades lives: It invades privacy, it strips people who get false
positives of their jobs, it destroys trust.
> When I vote, which is very rarely, I don't close the curtain.
Do you at least understand why people do? And why the law prohibits
anybody from watching you vote?
> And the answer to the 1st question would then be "Yes, but he should
> not".
Why not? Is that your decision to make, or shouldn't the shop owner
have a right to decide whether potentially lost business is worth the
value of privacy at home? Shouldn't the shop owner have a right to
decide he'd rather have people call his shop and get the answering
machine or the answering service instead of having people call his
home?
> Alot less light coming through the window so I can keep the sun
> out of my eyes while I'm sleeping.
So in winter when the sun rises after your wake-up time, do you leave
the curtains open since it is completely dark during the hours when you
sleep? Or do you close the curtains because there is something else
you gain from it?
> And I know you're not going to like this [and I have a good idea
> what your response will look like if there is one], but out of
> the 58 hours in the week that you don't spend working, commuting
> or sleeping, how many are spent reading through law books and
> newspapers to monitor the newest tactics that the government has
> devised to screw you out of your constitutional rights?
On average probably less than two hours.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
| |||||
| 454.52 | TOOK::MORRISON | Bob M. LKG1-3/A11 226-7570 | Thu Jun 15 1995 21:40 | 13 | |
> If drug testing saves just 1 life . . . it is worth it only if the COST > is worth less than one life. Why do we continue to drive cars even > though they cost tens of thousands of lives in this country each year? > Because the cost of not driving cars is greater than the cost of lives > lost. We're not willing to accept the degradation in quality of life > that would happen if we all gave up driving. I'm going to rathole briefly to say: The other reason why we drive cars and put our lives in jeopardy, as well as put ourselves in jeopardy of major law- suits, is that there is usually NO ALTERNATIVE. And the reason why there is no alternative is that the oil-auto-roadbuilding triumvirate had too much power from 1945-90 in the U.S. and saw to it that we would NOT have alternatives, except in a few of our largest metropolises. | |||||
| 454.53 | TOOK::MORRISON | Bob M. LKG1-3/A11 226-7570 | Thu Jun 15 1995 21:46 | 19 | |
> It's strange in retrospect that when Digital set out to reduce its
> headcount, rather than go through the expense, etc., of TFSO's,
> they didn't simply institute drug testing. Some substantial
> percentage would have quit right then and there. Probably not
> enough for their purposes, but it would have been a start.
I hope BP doesn't read this. He may not have thought of this idea yet, and
there are still some divisions that need to reduce headcount.
Re someone watching during drug tests: I saw a program about a year ago that
had a segment on drug testing. The way they did it there was that the tester
put dye in the toilet to prevent the subject from diluting the sample with
water from the toilet, then let the subject urinate in private, then checked
the toilet to make sure he hadn't flushed it. I think the tester also checked
the subject for hidden "stuff" that could have been a bottle of water, or some-
one else's urine.
Is this the way most drug tests are done now? Or have they gone back to
having someone watch you, as was the case during the early days of mandatory
testing?
| |||||
| 454.54 | AIMTEC::MORABITO_P | Hotlanta Rocks | Fri Jun 16 1995 09:20 | 13 | |
Re -1 When I took my test there was blue water in the toilet. Now I didn't think this was 2000 flushes in a clinic, so this might have been the dye you spoke of. They told me not to flush the toilet. I suppose if I had anything to worry about I could have smuggled in my own sample. The local alternative weekly magazine here in town has all kinds of ads on how to beat drug tests. I don't know if these really work. I spoke some notes ago about someone getting locks of hair tested for Cocaine abuse. This is supposed to be a fool proof way of testing. Has anyone heard about this? Paul | |||||
| 454.55 | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | M1A - The choice of champions ! | Fri Jun 16 1995 12:39 | 12 | |
> I'm going to rathole briefly to say: The other reason why we drive cars and
> put our lives in jeopardy, as well as put ourselves in jeopardy of major law-
> suits, is that there is usually NO ALTERNATIVE. And the reason why there is no
> alternative is that the oil-auto-roadbuilding triumvirate had too much power
> from 1945-90 in the U.S. and saw to it that we would NOT have alternatives,
> except in a few of our largest metropolises.
HOG WASH ! ! !
This may be true for YOU, but I drive because I enjoy it!
:-)
Dan "The Wheelman"
| |||||
| 454.56 | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | M1A - The choice of champions ! | Fri Jun 16 1995 12:43 | 8 | |
The way they avoided using a different sample back at Generous Electric
was they made you strip down and put on one of those johny (sp?)
things. Trust me there ain't NO PLACE to hide NOTHIN' in one of those
*&$#(^*(# things ! H*ll the flippin' thing barely covered all of me
private parts, and I ain't all that tall !
:-/
Dan
| |||||
| 454.57 | TOOK::MORRISON | Bob M. LKG1-3/A11 226-7570 | Fri Jun 16 1995 17:28 | 5 | |
> The way they avoided using a different sample back at Generous Electric > was they made you strip down and put on one of those johny (sp?) > things. Ugh. I think I'd rather be pat-searched. | |||||
| 454.58 | DASHER::RALSTON | cantwejustbenicetoeachother?:) | Fri Jun 16 1995 18:46 | 4 | |
I'd get rid of my car in an instant if I could get around in the same
amount of time, another way. I hate cars!
...Tom
| |||||
| 454.59 | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Jun 20 1995 15:30 | 14 | |
Re .52:
> I'm going to rathole briefly to say: The other reason why we drive
> cars and put our lives in jeopardy, as well as put ourselves in
> jeopardy of major law- suits, is that there is usually NO ALTERNATIVE.
Oh, baloney. You know Mary French. Ask her about alternatives.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
| |||||
| 454.60 | SUBPAC::SADIN | We the people? | Thu Jun 22 1995 20:55 | 110 | |
date=6/22/95
type=background report
number=5-30406
title=drugs in the workplace
byline=valonda bruinton
dateline=washington
content=
voiced at:
intro: a coalition of anti-drug organizations has unveiled an
advertising campaign targeting what it says is the largest
employer of drug users in the united states -- small businesses.
v-o-a's valonda bruinton has this report on what the groups say
they are doing to combat the growing problem.
text: the partnership for a drug-free america says 71-percent of
all current drug users in the u-s are employed. it says
one-in-three americans believe someone they work with uses drugs
or has used them in the past few years.
while the majority of large u-s corporations have implemented
policies and programs to fight drugs in the workplace, the group
says 80-percent of american employees work in small and medium
sized businesses where few anti-drug policies exist.
james copple, director of the community anti-drug coalitions of
america, says the new workplace advertisements are a warning to
smaller companies about the problem.
// copple act //
the campaign is designed to challenge medium and small
businesses to replicate what many in large industries
have already established and that is policies, practices
and procedures that will create drug free workplaces.
// end act //
the organizations have also released the results of a national
survey which found that substance abuse costs american businesses
at least 60-billion dollars a year.
the survey indicates ignoring the problem tears at the financial
base of businesses or what the organizations call the bottom
line. but president of the national drugs don't work
partnership, william kaufmann, says small businesses still tend
to ignore the problem.
// kaufmann act //
owners of small companies are so busy managing their day
to day activities -- the cash flow, the payroll -- that
they don't realize the impact substance abuse is having
on their bottom line.
// end act //
the coalition says although their campaign is aimed at wiping out
drugs in the workplace, there is still a large concern for
keeping america's youth drug free.
mr. kaufmann says the attitude and behavior of adults are the
most important factors in the way young people think and
determine what their ongoing values will be.
he says outlets for youth such as schools and churches have a
responsibility in the fight, but he says they cannot be expected
to have a positive impact on the problem without a little help.
// kaufmann act //
it is unfair and its definitely unwise to believe that
political leaders, law enforcement officials and
educators, however capable they are, can possibly deal
with this problem alone. every adult has to have a much
higher level of knowledge and conviction if we have any
hope that the young people in their care are going to
improve their attitudes and behavior.
// end act //
the organizations say there are low-cost solutions available to
any company that wants them. but they say every business owner
already has access to the greatest weapon in the fight against
drugs, and that is a person's paycheck.
the community anti-drug coalitions of america says when a worker
is given a choice between getting high and getting paid, smart
employees will go for the paycheck and the others will usually
leave the company. (signed)
neb/vb/mmk
22-jun-95 3:36 pm edt (1936 utc)
nnnn
source: voice of america
.
| |||||
| 454.61 | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Thu Jun 22 1995 21:16 | 8 | |
So in other words, make all drug users that can be caught unemployable
to prove that drug users are all bottom alley types who have to steal
to support themselves and their families. Makes sense to me in a
circular fashion.
Once again we destroy families to save them.
meg
| |||||
| 454.62 | Typical soundbite garbage | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150kts is TOO slow! | Thu Jun 22 1995 21:16 | 8 |
That makes it sound like it is bad that 71% of the people who use drugs are employed. What do they want to do, fire them all so they can go on welfare have the rest of us support them??? I also notice that they didn't mention what percentage of drug users use drugs or are under the influence of drugs at the workplace. Bob | |||||
| 454.63 | DECLNE::SHEPARD | It's the Republicans' fault | Thu Jun 22 1995 21:17 | 5 | |
I believe that 100 % of drug users use drugs. Don't believe me though verify it first. :-) Mikey | |||||
| 454.64 | TROOA::COLLINS | Aural Sects | Thu Jun 22 1995 21:18 | 3 | |
I'll bet they didn't include the users and abusers of alcohol.
| |||||
| 454.65 | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Thu Jun 22 1995 21:22 | 22 | |
Bob,
when you have put out propaganda on how drugs make you unemployable,
untrustworthy, brain dead, and sterile, the next step is to find a way
to make the lie truth. Now obviously their commercial about marijuana
and sterility has been proven wrong, or there wouldn't be so many small
kids at Dead concerts, the brainwave pattern was found to be a complete
lie (70 year old comatose stroke victim, rather than 14 year old who
had smoked a joint), and the latest studies show DARE graduates
actually use more and a wider varietiy of drugs than kids who hadn't
taken the course. We won't even go into the latest commercial where
they say pot makes girls horny, and getting them to smoke pot is a
good way to get them into the sack. (Wonder how much the street price
went up over that one?)
Now for years they have been saying the only responsible use of some
drugs is not to use them and that all users of any recreational drug on
their list are irresponsible. 71% of drug users are employed and
supporting themselves and their families? Can't have that. It makes
their propaganda look as honest as a certain presidential candidate.
meg
| |||||
| 454.66 | DECLNE::SHEPARD | It's the Republicans' fault | Thu Jun 22 1995 21:24 | 7 | |
Maybe this thought should go under the conspiracy note. Has anyone ever considered how much money goes into political campaigns from drug dealers who want to see the crap remain illegal. If drugs are legalized, won't they stand to lose a great deal of money? Mikey | |||||
| 454.67 | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Thu Jun 22 1995 21:34 | 2 | |
give that it is a several billion dollar a year industry it wouldn't
surprise me a bit.
| |||||
| 454.68 | DOCTP::KELLER | Spprt smlr gvt. http://www.lp.org/lp/lp.html | Fri Jun 23 1995 11:17 | 9 | |
> <<< Note 454.66 by DECLNE::SHEPARD "It's the Republicans' fault" >>> > > >Has anyone ever considered how much money goes into political campaigns from >drug dealers who want to see the crap remain illegal. If drugs are legalized, >won't they stand to lose a great deal of money? BINGO!!! Give that man a prize... | |||||
| 454.69 | POBOX::SCHELTER | Fri Jun 23 1995 12:47 | 3 | ||
Ya think drug dealers like .69's ?
| |||||
| 454.70 | VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK | Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly | Sun Jun 25 1995 01:35 | 7 | |
re: Note 454.66 by DECLNE::SHEPARD
Ah ha, you're catching on.
Do you know who the largest importer of illegal drugs in this country
is? Dealers don't need to contribute to politicians.
MadMike
| |||||