Re: Drug testing

["Greg Odegaard" <gmodegaa@longvred.rmc.com>]

This thread has definately taken on a life of it's own.  Interesting given
the current state of affairs regarding anything else relevant.  The bottom
line, not to pass significant judgement on the right or wrong of the
matter, is that companies of all types and sizes are making mandatory drug,
and sometimes alcohol, tests a minimal condition of employment.  As Jim
McMaster so ably outlined, this is common and quite legal.  As Shawn has
noted, the reality is that if you don't like these conditions, for fear of
failing or to try to protect your privacy, you can choose not to apply or
obviously seriously seek employment with that firm.  Recent numbers I have
read, show that about 80% of Fortune 500 companies test for drugs, with
about 60% of all companies with 250 or more employees testing.  It is
clearly the norm now in the world of professional HR practices.  The
reasons for companies choosing to do so are many, but the rapid rise in the
practice has to do with liability insurance and the fact that the firms can
do it, so they do.  

To argue that they shouldn't may be a nice idea, but in the late 1990's I
am suprised someone is actually out in the work force without at least
realizing this is the norm, without having actually been tested.  Me, I pee
freely, because I have nothing to fear, and have been more interested in
the employment, than some soap box of an argument of whether it is fair or
proper.

This thread can take on a CBA workers versus management twist very easily,
and when Noah returns from his trip down south he will probably weigh in
with his opinions and those of Chomsky to boot.

Have a great weekend,
Greg

----------
> From: Shawn Roth <ufpdev!shawnr@uunet.uu.net>
> To: Jim Meninno <jim_meninno@hotmail.com>
> Cc: celtics@igtc.com
> Subject: Re: Drug testing
> Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 2:54 PM
> 
> I don't think that coersion is the correct term here, more like terms of
> employement.  I really don't think that they have the right to come to my
home
> and look what I have, but once I step onto the grounds of their
> complex(property), they are libale for what I do.  If I am driving a
company
> car, then I wouldn't doubt they already check that stuff, in my car, I
don't
> think so.  Are think you are pushing this a bit far.  Maybe in your eyes
you
> are not pushing this, but I do.
> 
> Have a good day,
> 
> Shawn
>