Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
L.A. Times Takes the Piss Out of Matt Welch
Matt Welch sells out:
I'm generally the kind of smart-ass who bristles at being told what to do (like registering for the "Selective" Service at 18, which I selected not to); and for the last few years I've worked at the libertarian Reason magazine, the kind of place where senior editors write books called "Saying Yes."
Yet there I was two weeks ago, handing my warm yellow beaker to the urine analyst ("Your temperature is nice," she said, clearly trying to soften the blow). So, presented with the lure of an interesting job, did I abandon my libertarian principles even faster than the Gingrich revolution?
Well, yes...
Somewhere in cyberspace, a reader is preparing to comment that the Times should have the right to require anything it pleases as a condition of employment, from peeing in a jar to rooting for the Dodgers. Comment away -- but first read Jacob Sullum's 2002 article on the roots and rationales of the urine-testing craze.
Dan T.|1.30.06 @ 2:35PM|#
Of course, since Matt gave up his urine by his own free will the
exchange was not a violation of any libertarian principles.
Libertarians have no problem with bowing down to corporate
masters.
|1.30.06 @ 2:57PM|#
Wait, a libertarian violated his principles? He must have been
stoned!
Thank you, I'm here all week!
|1.30.06 @ 2:57PM|#
Matt should be relieved there was no false positive or relieved there was a false negative.
|1.30.06 @ 2:58PM|#
I don't think Jesse's disclaimer was good enough. We need a
better disclaimer on the subject of terms of employment in a
private business.
Let's have a libertarian purity pissing contest!
|1.30.06 @ 3:06PM|#
Like a typical statist, thoreau wants the government to force us to have a libertarian purity pissing contest.
|1.30.06 @ 3:13PM|#
On a serious note, I wonder what kind of responses Matt will
get, and which (if any) letters they'll print in the LAT.
Probably a lot of pissed off readers! (OK, back to non
serious.)
|1.30.06 @ 3:13PM|#
You've got to give MW credit for firing a salvo at his new
bosses within his first week on the job. That said, I don't think
many people are truly bothered by drug testing. In college, I
turned down a summer job at Blockbuster video when they demanded a
drug test. The interviewer was stunned and utterly confused when I
explained that although I was drug free, I would not take the test
as a matter of principle.
Since then, like almost everyone else, I've learned to cave
quietly.
R C Dean|1.30.06 @ 3:18PM|#
I can't say from personal experience, ahem, but I understand those piss tests are easy to beat.
fyodor|1.30.06 @ 3:19PM|#
Whether the masters in question were corporate or public, this
doesn't come close to hypocrisy.
Administering such a test would come a little closer, but still
raises complicated questions of under what circumstances
participation in something one is against qualifies one for the "h"
word. At one extreme, all who opposed the Iraq war are hypocrites
for retaining our US citizenship. Yes, that's an extreme, and
that's why I bring it up. That's how far one can go down that
road.
As long as Matt keeps saying what he's said previously on
the matter, I really don't care where he pisses, myself. Except
that I'm sorry he had to suffer that particular indignity,
especially as I personally see it as unnecessary and noxious and
because, as Sullum points out, indirect government coercion may
well have played a role in it. And that goes for all workers who've
gone through it as well.
|1.30.06 @ 3:20PM|#
Instead, how about we just avoid talking about rights
unless we're talking about whether or not, say, the LA
Times should be able to require urine samples. Then
we can, I dunno, talk about whether it's reasonable,
fair, just or crazy ideas like that. A few
zillion less remarks along the line of "they have no
right to ask for that!" and I bet the pendantic
libertarian pointer-outer brigade will start standing down.
And yes, I know nobody said that. Nobody said anything
non-sarcastic about the Times having a right to ask for
that, either. :)
|1.30.06 @ 3:25PM|#
Ah, the Johns Flansburg and Linnell presciently saw Matt's
conundrum of duality. From "Weep Day":
Every man is made of two opinions
Every woman has a second half
And it's samba time for Tambo and weep day for Urine Man
It's weep day for Matt, indeed.
|1.30.06 @ 3:31PM|#
I can't help but wonder if there will be any "spillover" effects from the urine test being made public. Let's hope so.
|1.30.06 @ 3:34PM|#
I, for one, am glad that the LATimes is requiring Mr. Welch to undergo a urine test. We can't have editorial writers getting bombed on illicit substances and writing under the influence. It could be dangerous. America can't suffer the writings of another drug-addled lunatic editorialist like Molly Ivins or Pat Buccanan.
fyodor|1.30.06 @ 3:41PM|#
Good point, B.P. Even if one is generally against drug testing on principle, one would be rash to not take seriously an exception for...JOURNALISTS!!!
|1.30.06 @ 3:45PM|#
"THE NEWSPAPER you are reading has been lovingly compiled by
hundreds of humans who urinated into plastic measuring cups for the
privilege of bringing it to you."
Kudos. That's a helluva mental image.
|1.30.06 @ 3:53PM|#
You're all missing the point of drug tests. They are not about
safety, which can be more accurately determined by basic hand/eye
coordination tests than drug tests. They are about morality.
Because seeking physical pleasure that nincompoops in the
government say is immoral must surely be immoral.
I am so glad the LA Times is enlightened enough to not hire anyone
immoral. And I am so glad MW managed to pass the test anyway.
;)
|1.30.06 @ 3:58PM|#
Yes, I always prefer my news to be brought to me by people who pissed away their dignity in exchange for the right to tell it.
|1.30.06 @ 4:01PM|#
I still like Matt, anyway. Even if he never did an article on any of my suggestions.
|1.30.06 @ 4:06PM|#
I'm with fyodor. Matt Welch did not void his libertarian
credentials when he voided his bladder.
And he was able to use the incident to write a piece that scored
some pro-libertarian points.
|1.30.06 @ 4:32PM|#
the pendantic libertarian pointer-outer brigade
That's a cool name! PLPO Brigade.
Hmm, sounds vaguely like a Palestinian terrorist group. OK, maybe
not so cool.
fyodor|1.30.06 @ 4:36PM|#
I always prefer my news to be brought to me by people who
pissed away their dignity in exchange for the right to tell
it.
To the extent that an episode such as this says anything at all
about the journalist's work, which it probably doesn't, perhaps it
teaches the journalist not to be too idealistic and to report from
the standpoint of what is rather than what should be.
But like I said, it probably doesn't say anything at all.
|1.30.06 @ 4:38PM|#
it probably doesn't say anything at all.
It says they're willing to produce bodily fluids on demand if their
employer wants them to.
|1.30.06 @ 4:39PM|#
Perhaps its the juvenile delinquent in me but as I get older I'm finding that I'm happy to give my urine to anyone who wants it! Where would you like it....all over your desk.....your shoes?? What about on the hood of your car!? Stop me, I could go on all day!
|1.30.06 @ 5:03PM|#
Jennifer- I sure that as the holder of an English degree, you're at least peripherally aware of how difficult it is to find a good job as a journo. While I'm sure Reason is a wonderful place to work, I doubt they pay as well as the LA Times. Welch's choice no doubt reflected a desire not to starve as well as a desire to reach a wider audience. If he believed that those factors outweighed a one-time compromise with stupidity, then I'm not going to fault him for it.
|1.30.06 @ 5:15PM|#
not to turn this serious or anything, but I've struggled with
urine tests since the first time I refused to take one (for a
college internship). But the latest news with smokers being fired
and (although not a great analogy) Ford workers not being allowed
to park their Non-fords at work raises a lot of interesting points
about what an employer can demand. So my question is, since
everyone seems to think MW did not sell out by giving in, how does
one fight policies like this (knowing of course that the
libertarian answer is "start your own company and hire all the
people who refused to take the test elsewhere).
My answer is.....I have quite a bit of experience at what I do, and
am damn good at it. I wait until people understand that during the
interview process, then let them know I won't take the test. If
they insist, I take my talent elsewhere. It's the only answer I've
come up with in the last 20 years. (and yeah, I know I'd be
considered conceited to admit that my employer needs me as much as
I need him)
Or maybe I should just ask what the libertarian take on firing
someone for being a christian, being black, etc...?
fyodor|1.30.06 @ 5:27PM|#
It says they're willing to produce bodily fluids on demand
if their employer wants them to.
Well, um, yeah, but [scratches head] what does that say
about their journalism?
I'm hoping that the point of your post was to agree with me that
the answer is "probably nothing."
|1.30.06 @ 5:36PM|#
The happy juggler is absolutely right: this is a test of moral purity--nothing more. I'd like to think that I would refuse such a test, especially since I work in a field with relatively plentiful options. As for Mr. Welch's case, I wouldn't be surprised if all the Times' competitors would have wanted to inspect his piss too. On the other hand... does the Times practice random, periodic drug testing? In that case, I would have a much easier time telling them to shove it.
|1.30.06 @ 5:37PM|#
Stop me, I could go on all day!
I think your gonna have to pinch the flow off yourself there Dave.
Although your bladder should run dry sooner or later.
fyodor|1.30.06 @ 5:43PM|#
Greg,
What I was defending Matt against was, most specifically, the
charge that he was a hypocrite. Now, if Matt has ever written that
we should never submit to drug tests, or, more broadly, that we
should make the political personal and do whatever we could in our
personal lives to resist the profligation of bad ideas in the
world, then the charge of hypocrisy would have greater validity.
Also we were saying that taking the test did not violate
libertarian principles, and, simply put, it doesn't.
You raise issues that, while related to libertarianism in a
tangential way, fall distinctly outside of it. Now, that's totally
aside from the value of the moral issues you raise.
Now that we've dispensed with all of that, we can address the moral
issues you've raised. If one finds it morally abhorrent that
companies conduct piss tests for jobs that don't involve physical
safety (again, aside from the issue of whether this is the type of
moral issue that should involve the government one way or the
other), one would face a dilemna regarding whether to submit to
them for personal gain or try to fight them.
But this is a major if. I personally hesitate to call piss tests
immoral, though I would enthusiastically call them misguided and
noxious. Should we make it our business to fight misguided and
noxious business decisions? It's not something I would necessarily
take a strong stand on. Might depend on how noxious.
Anyway, being that I would prefer businesses drop this practice, I
commend you on your decision to fight it the way you are. But
similar to perhaps vegetarians in today's world, you might have to
accept that you act on personal principle and you should not expect
all your peers to follow suit lest you end up with no
friends.
Good luck!!
|1.30.06 @ 5:48PM|#
Perhaps Matt could have told them that he would use his phone call to inform them that he would be out for the day and and ask if they mind sending someone down with the baleH^H^il.
|1.30.06 @ 5:49PM|#
America can't suffer the writings of another drug-addled
lunatic editorialist like Molly Ivins or Pat Buccanan.
Dude, almost got hot chocolate all over my
keyboard
Wintermute|1.30.06 @ 5:50PM|#
Trying to live in accordance with noble over-arching principles
is fine. Then a hard case comes along, and either a sub-principle
must be rationalized or one's lack of omnipotence must be accepted.
Doesn't mean self-sacrifice or martyrdom is forever then off the
table. The good fight can still be fought to the dictates of one's
own conscience; and humans can forgive and be forgiven if they are
trying their best.
I still remember Bokonon's saying in Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle: "If I
am ever put to death on the hook, expect a very human
performance."
A case could be made for an employee's bill of rights that no drug
test can be made a condition of employment (at least for
continuance) without probable cause. That would be a natural right
not trumped by capitalism.
|1.30.06 @ 5:50PM|#
That's a cool name! PLPO Brigade.
Hmm, sounds vaguely like a Palestinian terrorist group. OK,
maybe not so cool.
Say it "Plah-Poh". Sounds much friendlier.
|1.30.06 @ 5:52PM|#
A case could be made for an employee's bill of rights that
no drug test can be made a condition of employment (at least for
continuance) without probable cause. That would be a natural right
not trumped by capitalism.
How would that be a natural right? And why should private
associations require probable cause in their interactions?
|1.30.06 @ 6:00PM|#
Workplaces that require stupid shit like drug tests for positions where safety isn't an issue always seem to be low-performing (Tribune Co., right?), don't they? Could it be a morale issue? Treat your employees like errant schoolchildren, and they'll do as little as possible, as often as possible.
|1.30.06 @ 6:07PM|#
Yeah, I've given up on anyone agreeing with me on this
issue.
But I do think giving in to this violates libertarian principles.
Sure, everyone makes their own decisions about what they will and
will not agree to before entering a contract. But when all
employers in a given field require them, and they do so because of
government policies and nearly a century of propoganda, then you're
clearly being given a choice betweeen employment and
submitting.
I'm not saying Matt was wrong to actually want 3 squares and a roof
over his head (or that I wouldn't have done it if I were in his
position), but it certainly doesn't jive with libertarian
philosophy.
|1.30.06 @ 6:10PM|#
Workplaces that require stupid shit like drug tests for
positions where safety isn't an issue always seem to be
low-performing (Tribune Co., right?), don't they? Could it be a
morale issue? Treat your employees like errant schoolchildren, and
they'll do as little as possible, as often as possible.
Well, for one thing they have to pay for a bunch of needless drug
tests. This costs money. Companies that do this sort of thing
aren't focused on the bottom line like they should be.
Second, a no drug users need apply policy is just
as suicidal as a no minorities (or Jews, or women) need
apply policy. You are simply restricting your employee
talent pool for non-meritoctratic reasons, and this hurts company
performance.
Discrimination hurts the company in addition to the individual.
|1.30.06 @ 6:36PM|#
Well, for one thing they have to pay for a bunch of needless
drug tests. This costs money. Companies that do this sort of thing
aren't focused on the bottom line like they should be.
My questions were somewhat rhetorical. You are exactly right.
Companies that treat their employees like crap for no good reason
are certainly not looking out for the bottom line. Workplace morale
is a fragile thing in the best of circumstances, and purposeless
drug tests by a decaying outfit like the L.A. Times is pretty much
Exhibit A. Me, I would have had to be on some pretty good drugs to
put up with their statist editorial slant during the Kinsley
regime...
|1.30.06 @ 6:38PM|#
purposeless drug tests by a decaying outfit like the L.A.
Times is pretty much Exhibit A
And no, I'm not on drugs at the moment, despite the lack of
subject/verb agreement.
|1.30.06 @ 6:39PM|#
Discrimination hurts the company in addition to the
individual.
And yet I don't see drug-testing companies declaring bankruptcy
anymore than non-drug-testing companies, just as back in the bad
old days whites-only companies didn't go bankrupt in the face of
companies that would also hire blacks. If Matt Welch had refused
the job, the LA Times would not go under for lack of him at the
helm.
I agree with Wintermute about the need for a worker's bill of
rights, but then I never bought into the libertarian argument that
things are only bad when it's the government doing them.
|1.30.06 @ 6:45PM|#
I agree with Wintermute about the need for a worker's bill
of rights, but then I never bought into the libertarian argument
that things are only bad when it's the government doing
them.
Those darn libertarians. That's why everyone in this thread is
cheering the LA Times for drug-testing, including me.
|1.30.06 @ 6:47PM|#
Those darn libertarians. That's why everyone in this thread
is cheering the LA Times for drug-testing, including me.
You don't need to cheer, so long as you insist they have the right
to do it. Personally, I think employers should only have the right
to worry about issues which actually pertain to the job.
|1.30.06 @ 6:53PM|#
You don't need to cheer, so long as you insist they have the
right to do it.
That's the fucked-up thing about freedom, Jennifer. It involves
people having the right to do things you really wish they wouldn't
do.
|1.30.06 @ 7:00PM|#
And honestly, Jennifer - if the choice is between employers doing something as dumb as requiring unnecessary drug tests and concerned folks like you telling people what they are and aren't allowed to worry about, I do choose allowing corporate stupidity.
|1.30.06 @ 7:01PM|#
That's the fucked-up thing about freedom, Jennifer. It
involves people having the right to do things you really wish they
wouldn't do.
I don't agree that employers should have the freedom to take
freedom away from their employees.
|1.30.06 @ 7:02PM|#
if the choice is between employers doing something as dumb
as requiring unnecessary drug tests and concerned folks like you
telling people what they are and aren't allowed to worry about, I
do choose allowing corporate stupidity.
No, the choice is between allowing employers to demand drug tests
and NOT allowing employers to demand drug tests. But by all means,
pretend the issue is "what I think people are allowed to worry
about."
|1.30.06 @ 7:07PM|#
My latest findings, which are none too spectacular:
After some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations, it appears
Tribune might spend around $25,000 a year on drug testing.
Not exactly a bottom-line killer, but literally pissing away
$25,000 a year pisses me off on principle.
It doubly pisses me off when the money goes straight to the drug
testing companies who are turning this around and "reinvesting" by
lobbying the living shit out of Congress and state and local
governments to expand elementary, junior, and high school drug
testing for athletes and anyone who wants a damned parking permit,
and it triply pisses me off that drug testing is a victory for the
self-anointed and elected morality police.
|1.30.06 @ 7:14PM|#
I don't agree that employers should have the freedom to take
freedom away from their employees.
I don't agree that saying, "We want you to give us a urine sample
before we give you money," takes away anyone's freedom.
No, the choice is between allowing employers to demand drug
tests and NOT allowing employers to demand drug tests. But by all
means, pretend the issue is "what I think people are allowed to
worry about."
It's how you put it, not my fault. But I think it's much
more about that than it is some straw-man libertarian of
yours not minding anything done to anyone by anyone outside of the
government.
But we all know it would absolutely kill you to be anything less
than obnoxious to anyone who disagrees with you on some issue.
|1.30.06 @ 7:17PM|#
I'm sure Tribune considers it 25,000 well-spent dollars, since
they get to brag to the government about what Good Corporate
Citizens they are.
And I'll bet it's all tax-deductible, too. So they're not paying
for it--we are.
|1.30.06 @ 7:17PM|#
I think that the market can and will correct for the foolishness
that is frivolous drug testing. I used to work for a large consumer
finance company that, in the 'early days', had drug testing as a
condition of employment. The testing was quietly disbanded when the
company realized that it was turning down some really sharp
software developers and graphic artists.
BTW, I think that a private company has every right to drug test.
It's the company's loss (both of talent plus the non-trivial
expense associated with paying for all of the testers.)
|1.30.06 @ 7:19PM|#
I don't agree that saying, "We want you to give us a urine
sample before we give you money," takes away anyone's
freedom.
Then we disagree about how much control an employer should have
over an employee's personal life.
But we all know it would absolutely kill you to be anything
less than obnoxious to anyone who disagrees with you on some
issue.
Yes, your earlier comment "That's the fucked up thing about
freedom, Jennifer," demonstrates your clear, unadulterated
commitment to avoiding obnoxiousness when disagreeing with people,
Eric.
|1.30.06 @ 7:24PM|#
Then we disagree about how much control an employer should
have over an employee's personal life.
That may be. I'd prefer to leave that up to employers and
employees.
Yes, your earlier comment "That's the fucked up thing about
freedom, Jennifer," demonstrates your clear, unadulterated
commitment to avoiding obnoxiousness when disagreeing with people,
Eric.
Aside from the fact that I think that is the
fucked-up thing about freedom, I didn't claim I have any commitment
to avoiding being obnoxious in response to smug bullshit like "but
then I never bought into the libertarian argument that things are
only bad when it's the government doing them."
|1.30.06 @ 7:29PM|#
response to smug bullshit like "but then I never bought into
the libertarian argument that things are only bad when it's the
government doing them"
Then let me change "bad" to "worthy of being prohibited by law."
Hell, I'm still shaking my head with dismay over the thread in
which people insisted "Employers have the right to
sexually harass their employees unless their employment contracts
say otherwise."
|1.30.06 @ 7:30PM|#
In regard to why a company would drug test
(leaving aside obvious jobs like pharmacist, pilot, etc.), could
there also be a liability angle?
Say that you run a business. Something bad happens (injury, fraud,
scandal, whatever), so somebody sues you.
It turns out that one of the employees involved in the incident is
a recreational drug user. When he showed up to work he didn't show
any signs of intoxication or impairment, and maybe the drugs had
nothing to do with the incident. But drug use means that he is a
Legally Certified Bad Person, and our government has spent decades
talking about how dangerous these Legally Certified Bad People are,
and has spent two decades promoting drug testing.
Since you didn't do a test to find out if he was a Legally
Certified Bad Person, could that fact be used against you in court?
I'm not asking whether there's a specific statute holding you
accountable, I'm just asking whether it could be taken as a sign of
negligence: You had a cheap way of finding out if he was a Legally
Certified Bad Person, you didn't do it, and then something bad
happened.
|1.30.06 @ 7:33PM|#
Then let me change "bad" to "worthy of being prohibited by
law."
Still bullshit, which you know.
Hell, I'm still shaking my head with dismay over the thread in
which people insisted "Employers have the right to sexually harass
their employees unless their employment contracts say
otherwise."
I wasn't there that I recall, but it's about the right to be wrong.
Look into it - you're exercising it.
|1.30.06 @ 7:34PM|#
If it will help, assume that in my previous post the suit is filed in Madison County, Illinois, America's lawsuit capitol.
|1.30.06 @ 7:42PM|#
I wasn't there that I recall, but it's about the right to be
wrong. Look into it - you're exercising it.
Still committed to non-obnoxiousness! If I wore a hat, Eric, it
would be off to you right now. Your politeness is surpassed only by
your stunning lack of hypocrisy.
Still bullshit, which you know.
No, I don't "know." I see nothing wrong with limiting an employer's
power over his employee to that which affects the employee's job.
Just as I view a woman's freedom to do her job without having her
boss paw at her to be more important than a boss's freedom to paw
at the woman if she wants to keep her job.
|1.30.06 @ 7:46PM|#
Since you didn't do a test to find out if he was a Legally
Certified Bad Person, could that fact be used against you in court?
I'm not asking whether there's a specific statute holding you
accountable, I'm just asking whether it could be taken as a sign of
negligence: You had a cheap way of finding out if he was a Legally
Certified Bad Person, you didn't do it, and then something bad
happened.
I don't think that's it, Thoreau--if that were the case, I imagine
public schools would make a point of testing teachers, and so far,
with a very few exceptions, they don't.
|1.30.06 @ 7:56PM|#
Still committed to non-obnoxiousness! If I wore a hat, Eric,
it would be off to you right now. Your politeness is surpassed only
by your stunning lack of hypocrisy.
There's none on my part. I'm quite able to discuss and even argue
with people who disgree with me without resorting to obnoxiousness.
When's the last time you reacted to a contrary view with anything
less than absolute disdain and merry outright lies about what that
person said?
No, I don't "know."
Sorry, I know you're not stupid, Jennifer. You know as well as I do
that the non-anarchist libertarians (in other words, everyone here
except Ruthless) want government around to protect people
from other people. Murder, rape, assault, theft, fraud,
etc. That would cover many forms of sexual harassment - the actions
that would be illegal to do to a complete stranger,
basically.
But you know what? I'm tired of taking umbrage at your dumb gibes
and your vacuous, self-righteous emoting. I'm done.
Have the last word, by all means.
|1.30.06 @ 8:09PM|#
There are many ways to determine if a person is intoxicated on
the job that are far less intrusive than the whiz quiz. I think
drug testing is a serious breach of privacy and should ONLY be used
if there is probable cause to believe that an employee's drug use
is affecting his / her work.
However, in a similar vein, I recall an employer that tested female
employees for pregnancy, because the work involved being exposed to
hazardous chemicals that could cause birth defects in a fetus. Is
this policy discriminatory or prudent business practice.
Discuss.
|1.30.06 @ 8:39PM|#
I think you guys are all missing an important question. Does the LAT piss test everyone, or just well known libertarians?
|1.30.06 @ 8:50PM|#
You know as well as I do that the non-anarchist libertarians
(in other words, everyone here except Ruthless) want government
around to protect people from other people.
Which is exactly why I think employees should be protected from
employers who attach a bunch of unnecessary conditions to the
employee's ability to make a living.
Sandy|1.30.06 @ 8:58PM|#
I'd like to distinguish between my belief that the LAT has the right to act like asshats, but that libertarians can still say they shouldn't act like asshats. There's nothing contradictory there.
|1.30.06 @ 8:59PM|#
I personally hesitate to call piss tests immoral
Not me - I have no problem calling them immoral. I think they're a
gross invasion of privacy, and they reflect a presumption that
you're guilty until proven innocent for no reason other than to
fuel busybodies' smug satisfaction that they're not dealing with
"druggies".
|1.30.06 @ 9:31PM|#
A company doesn't have to go bankrupt for discrimination to hurt
them. They could simply make less money.
A good example is the Boston Celtics. I don't remember the actual
record (for which I am ashamed for my memory loss since I am
originally from Boston) but I believe they won 9 of 10 World
Championships during the 60's, with superb results in the 70's as
well.
Why is that relevant? Because they fielded the first starting five
all-black team in the NBA. While the rest of the league was stuck
in the stone ages of discrimination, the Celtics were taking the
cream of the crop of black basketball players. So they were
basically getting a free run at hiring the far right side of half
(the black half) the bell curve, while everyone else was fighting
over the other half (the white half) of the far right side of the
bell curve. It wasn't until the rest of the league convinced black
athletes that they weren't bigoted teams that the Celtics lost
dominance.
Discrimination hurts the company, and a policy that hires
discriminated people while others don't hire them will gain you an
edge. Meritocracy is the way to go, and except for obvious cases
like airline pilots etc., drug tests aren't actually related to
performance on the job, and therefore they hurt companies
performance.
Sometimes the best will be white, other times black. Sometimes
male, others female. Sometimes the best will use the occasional
joint (or "worse") on weekends, sometimes they will be teetotalers.
Choosing to not hire from a whole class of people who have some
geniuses, morons, and everything in between will quarantee you will
not be able to pick and choose from that subgroup, and will be
missing out on a lot of the best people you could have hired. And
when it comes to illegal drugs, that subgroup is large.
|1.30.06 @ 9:48PM|#
I'd like to distinguish between my belief that the LAT has
the right to act like asshats, but that libertarians can still say
they shouldn't act like asshats. There's nothing contradictory
there.
Sorry, no, you're just not allowed. If you say they have a right to
do it, you're just cheering them on.
|1.30.06 @ 10:10PM|#
So, here's my moral dilemma: If I find myself living in Southern California again, do I refuse to subscribe to the LAT to protest their urine tests? Or do I persuade all my friends to subscribe to show my support for their decision to hire Matt Welch?
|1.30.06 @ 10:19PM|#
If you can't get them to read reason, then maybe the next best thing is to have the read MW's columns, and "force" them to ignore the rest. They may not agree with him, at least not for a while, but maybe he will help open their minds to the notion that the idea is to be for liberty, regardless of whether or not it is "civil".
|1.30.06 @ 10:26PM|#
Then we disagree about how much control an employer should
have over an employee's personal life.
So... employer = slave owner and employee = slave?
Hmm?
|1.30.06 @ 11:25PM|#
I pissed in a cup to get a job and I didn't even get to publicly complain about it afterward, like Matt did. If only my blog was up then...wait, I don't have a blog. damit.
|1.30.06 @ 11:34PM|#
The issue everybody has missed on this thread is that the bulk
of drug testing in the US is either required or strongly pushed by
various government agencies. It is not so much an agreement between
private parties as it is a regime enforced by government
authority.
Here is a good question, how are we supposed to get honest balanced
reporting on drug testing or drug policy when everyone writing on
the topic has agreed to be drug tested???
Sandy Smith|1.30.06 @ 11:58PM|#
Sorry, no, you're just not allowed. If you say they have a
right to do it, you're just cheering them on.
Oh, good. I can stop purposely sneezing on the registration book
for pseudoephedrine purchases in the hopes of sickening the
gendarmes. Turns out I likes the drug war! Whew.
|1.30.06 @ 11:59PM|#
Which is exactly why I think employees should be protected
from employers who attach a bunch of unnecessary conditions to the
employee's ability to make a living.
But it's for the CHILDR, er, EMPLOYEES!!
They're helpless & unable to care for themselves. They've only
two options: Suck it up and take it, or (at best) settle for for a
much lower standard of living, but more likely starve to
death on the street with their children. There really is is no
other way.
|1.30.06 @ 11:59PM|#
"Then we disagree about how much control an employer should have
over an employee's personal life."
The employer only has as much as the employee allows.
"Which is exactly why I think employees should be protected from
employers who attach a bunch of unnecessary conditions to the
employee's ability to make a living."
With the key word being "unnecessary". Letting government decide
what those "unnecessary" conditions are is no more likely to
generate acceptable terms than letting the employee and employer
decide those things through freedom of association. Do you at least
agree that what would constitute "unnecessary conditions" would
vary across the spectrum of people and jobs?
Descriminating on the basis of physical strength would seem to be
an unreasonable means of selecting computer programmers. It may be
a far more reasonable criteria for security officers. Having the
government decide for which jobs physical strength is an
unnecessary condition is not likely to be better than letting the
market sort that out by itself.
|1.31.06 @ 12:12AM|#
Along with what TJIT said, one thing to remember is that most
drug testing is done for the purpose of identifying
illegal drugs.
If they find trace levels of pot from a joint smoked a few days ago
you can be denied a job. But if they find trace alcohol from a beer
last night then that's no problem. (I don't know if they can
actually pick up trace alcohol from light drinking the night
before, but even if they can I'm sure they won't care.) If they
find trace cocaine they won't hire you, but if they find nicotine
they won't care. If they find vicodin and you don't have a
prescription they won't hire you, but if you do have a prescription
it's all good.
I'm not calling for coercive remedies here, but I do think we need
to see the problem more clearly:
When this sort of thing comes up we inevitably trot out our
libertarian bone fides and go on about how these sorts of things
are perfectly OK as a matter of libertarian philosophy. And while
that's true, the point that Jacob wrote about in his article, and
that Jesse reminded us of in his post, is that most of these
companies aren't doing this as a spontaneous exercise in economic
freedom. They're doing this as a response to an insane policy. They
don't test to see if you might be impaired by irresponsible use of
a recreational substance, they test to see if you've broken an
insane law.
If we didn't have an insane drug war I'll bet that most employers
wouldn't care in the least whether you have trace amounts of a
recreational substance. Some of them might test anyway, but they'd
only be looking for levels indicative of impairment, not the
residue of a party a few days ago.
So, again, I won't call for a coercive remedy here, but that's
because I don't see this as a matter of voluntary agreements
between private parties. Rather, I see this as a manifestation of
the insane drug war, and I don't see any hope for change until the
drug war ends.
|1.31.06 @ 1:02AM|#
Actually, I can see jobs where it might make sense to drug-test. Truck drivers and heavy equipment operators come to mind.
|1.31.06 @ 2:03AM|#
If we didn't have an insane drug war I'll bet that most
employers wouldn't care in the least whether you have trace amounts
of a recreational substance.
Except that drug-testing seems to be generally favored by the
public. They've been fed so much anti-drug propaganda that even if
the drug war were to end tomorrow by some strange twist of fate,
they'd probably go on testing and proudly informing the public
about their "drug-free workplaces".
|1.31.06 @ 2:11AM|#
Why do we always have to get derailed into libertarian policy
fantasyland here? Politics has no bearing on this.
It doesn't matter what the Times's policy is. It matters what
Welch's is. And it's "Obey," even when the cost of refusal is low.
It's not like the Times will shoot him or jail him for saying, "No,
I'd rather be human, thanks." He just debased himself utterly, in a
manner no self-respecting person would even consider, for...$50,000
maybe?
Now that we know he's so cheap, everything he does or says, or ever
has done or said, declines in value accordingly.
A proud day for Reason.
|1.31.06 @ 2:22AM|#
whether it could be taken as a sign of negligence
Theoretically it could be, as could pretty much anything a
plaintiff wanted to argue. As a practical matter, in the case of an
office job like Matt Welch's it never is. You are not going to
blame the courts for this one, T. There are actual people in the
private sector* making irrational decisions without being coerced
by the gov't to do so. Live and learn.
FOOTNOTE
* Government contracts may require drug testing. They used to claim
that when I did government contracting and maybe it was even true.
Course, gov't contracting ain't really the private sector.
|1.31.06 @ 8:54AM|#
Do you at least agree that what would constitute
"unnecessary conditions" would vary across the spectrum of people
and jobs?
Of course.
And despite some sarcastic comments to the contrary, simply finding
a better job elsewhere isn't as simple as some here make it out to
be. Many workers--especially those on the lower rungs of the job
ladder--are practically disposable; if one loses his job there are
plenty more to take his place. The theory "suck it up or find
another job elsewhere" didn't prevent a lot of workers from being
exploited in the days before certain worker-protection laws; why
think it will do so now?
The employer/employee relationship is not equivalent to a
master/slave relationship, but neither is it a relationship between
two equals, either.
|1.31.06 @ 8:54AM|#
Dave W.-
You may be right.
Eric-
No doubt they would test heavy equipment operators and truck
drivers for drug use even if there were no drug war. But I doubt
they'd care too much about trace levels from after work use. They'd
just want to know whether somebody is impaired.
Rhywun-
The public is cool with it, but (1) the public, just like
employers, is taking its cue from drug laws and (2) if the law
stopped sending the signal that smoking a joint is a sign of
depravity I'll bet that the public wouldn't care enough to make
buying decisions based on drug testing. In which case most
employers would probably decide to quietly stop wasting money on
this.
Yes, I know, it's a small amount of money, but it's money. And
smart expenditures of small amounts of money can pay off. Put a
second microwave and an espresso machine in the break room, buy
slightly nicer office supplies, and buy some birthday cakes, and
you'll have a more motivated staff.
Honestly, if there weren't some crazy laws in place, I seriously
doubt that anybody would view smoking a joint as 10000000x more
serious than drinking a beer.
|1.31.06 @ 9:40AM|#
As an anecdotal example of the public taking its cues from the law, I know somebody who thinks that 20 year olds who get drunk at parties need to go to rehab. But not 21 year olds.
|1.31.06 @ 9:56AM|#
I'm very glad the LA Times is protecting me from reading anything written by people with tainted urine, like T. De Quincey, W. Burroughs, H. Thompson or S. Gould. They're all very naughty.
|1.31.06 @ 10:17AM|#
if the law stopped sending the signal that smoking a joint
is a sign of depravity I'll bet that the public wouldn't care
enough to make buying decisions based on drug testing.
Perhaps... but it would take a lot of, uh, re-education to disabuse
much of the public of the notion that casual drug use is some sort
of moral depravity. Here's an anecdote: my older brother was
permanantly kicked out of the house at 17, and basically disowned,
for a little pot smoking. Attitudes like that don't go away
overnight, law or no law.
fyodor|1.31.06 @ 11:25AM|#
Jennifer,
We're never going to agree on the role of government regarding
perceived bad things done in employment relations.
But when you say that libertarians only think it's a bad thing when
it's done by the government, you are misrepresenting our
position.
The types of bad things that can happen in the world is unlimited.
It is infinite.
The type of bad things that government should punish people for,
OTOH, is limited. That's because government punishment--and I'm
sorry if this scares you or anyone else away from libertarianism,
but there's no way to explain myself and libertarianism without
addressing it--is coercive. As ugly and noxious as drug testing is,
it's not coercive, because people have a choice whether or not to
submit to it. Now, it's never a choice that I would envy, and for
some it's a critical choice. But it's still an uncoerced choice.
Since government enforces its laws with coercion, and since we do
not believe in initiating coercion, we are against using
the law to stop businesses from requiring drug testing.
Now, I'm sure you can come up with a million reasons why this is
the wrong or bad position to take on the matter. Like I said, I'm
sure we'll never agree. But please just don't say that we don't
think anything bad can happen unless it's done by the government,
because that is simply not an accurate depiction of our
position.
fyodor|1.31.06 @ 11:33AM|#
Jennifer,
If you want to make fun of or dismiss our views in this matter but
still be accurate, perhaps you could say something like: Oh,
libertarians are so hung up on their principle of noninitiation of
force or coercion that they don't want the law to take the side of
employees who stand to suffer from stupid or bigoted decisions of
businesses. That's accurate enough.
Dave W.|1.31.06 @ 11:39AM|#
people have a choice whether or not to submit to
it
Depends on what you mean by "choice." It depends on whether you
define choice analytically or empirically. If five companies hire
all the employees worldwide in your field of work, then you will
have a lot less choice, in a certain sense, than someone who works
in a field with hundreds or thousands of employers. In the sense in
which you use the word choice, the employees would have equal
amounts of choice.
I found Joe to be pretty persuasive on this topic back when he was
discussing subway searched last year.
|1.31.06 @ 11:42AM|#
I think the more compassionate but still doctrinaire stance would be to acknowledge how sucky this is and suggest that it's at least in part a symptom of a coercive policy. That way you can do the decent thing and call for a solution, while still winning the libertarian pissing contest.
Dave W.|1.31.06 @ 11:48AM|#
The irony for Matt Welch is that there was a lot less drug testing in the newspaper industry before it got all consolidated. Now that the industry is consolidated it can behave irrationally, at least at some margins, likely including piss testing (which we all seem to agree is irrational for Matt-Welch-type employees). However, having Matt use this as an opportunity to re-think his position on media consolidation is probably a bit much to hope for.
Dave W.|1.31.06 @ 11:54AM|#
suggest that it's at least in part a symptom of a coercive
policy
Except that the government does little to encourage drug testing.
Having drug tests doesn't help in most tort suits (exceptions, as
usual, for train engineers and the like). The government doesn't
require them. the government doesn't award companies for turning
users in. The government doesn't generally prosecute based on
employment drug tests. The government doesn't tax employment drug
tests. The gov't may do a lot of drug testing, but really they do
surprisingly *little* to encourage it.
I understand the drive to foist blame for evrything on the gov't
because they screw up so often, but private sector drug tests come
from the private sector. That is where the blame goes.
fyodor|1.31.06 @ 11:58AM|#
Dave W,
I use the word "choice" in the most literal manner possible. You
always have a choice. You may not like the choices available to
you, but you still have a choice.
Libertarians draw a distinction between choices that involve
coercion and those that do not. If someone points a gun at your
head and says do X or else you get it, then you are facing coercion
as part of your choice. Having to choose to between submitting to
drug tests or changing one's type of career may not be a pleasant
choice, but it does not involve coercion. When the law is applied
to a decision, it brings coercion into the equation because if you
do not follow the law, the law will violate your rights. It will
take your money or put you in jail against your will, and if you
resist, it will either make that impossible, perhaps by putting a
bullet through your head. Thus, we do not believe the law should be
brought into a situation until someone has already violated someone
else's rights. And you do not have a right to a job, nor do you
have a right to not have to face unpleasant choices.
Again, we can disagree about this all day long, and I don't expect
to change your mind. But just understand that you always have a
choice, regardless of how many or few companies there are or how
widespread drug testing is in your chosen field of employment.
Having a less pleasant set of choices than perhaps someone else has
does not preclude it from being every bit as much of a choice.
Dave W.|1.31.06 @ 12:14PM|#
Libertarians draw a distinction between choices that involve
coercion and those that do not.
Having a nice, neat, binary definition of choice like this
certainly does have some advantages. It makes it easy to determine
whether choice has been abridged or expanded by government action.
It makes it easy to decide whether a proposed new policy will
expand or contract choice.
The bad part about your definition of choice is that it fails to
appreciate additional margins of choice that occur when many
different options are independently offerred by many different
parties. These additional margins of choice always get discounted
because you have rigged your definitions so that this additional
margin, isn't "choice" under your definition.
My definition of choice is softer. My definition of choice focuses
on the types of choices where people's decisions are free to go
either way and are not determined, in either a hard or soft manner,
by external circumstances. Matt had a Fyodorian choice not to take
the drug test, but he had no Dave Wian choice given the prevalence
of drug testing at high circulation newspapers these days. I think
good policy should focus co-extensively with Dave Wian choices, and
not limit itself to Fyodorian choices. It makes policy messier, but
it also means that more people will get more autonomy that they
find meaningful, instead of formal and procedural.
|1.31.06 @ 12:28PM|#
Dave W., I don't deny that many (most?) of these tests are not
explicitly mandated. And you're probably right that testing confers
little advantage in most liability situations. That was speculation
on my part, and I was open to correction. So thank you for
correcting me.
However, we can't ignore the amazing coincidence between what tests
look for and what the law bans. Do you really, honestly believe
that testing would continue in its current form if laws were
liberalized? I won't assert that more liberal laws would end all
such testing (outside of narrow circumstances like heavy equipment
operators, etc.), but I think we'd see some big changes. Do you
dispute that?
fyodor|1.31.06 @ 12:28PM|#
Dave W,
I had a very hard time understanding your post, in no smalll part
because you kept talking about my "definition" and yet the passage
of mine you quoted says nothing about "definition" but
rather focuses on a particular "distinction." What I said has
nothing to do with "rigging" a definition. We all know what the
word "choice" means for chrissake. My take on these issues has
everything to do with drawing distinctions that I find meaningful
and significant. I guess you're saying that laws can add to the set
of available choices or create better ones. Maybe you're right,
though I doubt it, and it's unlikely we'll figure that out here and
now. Just understand you always have a choice, by any meaning of
the word I understand.
|1.31.06 @ 12:35PM|#
Except that the government does little to encourage drug
testing....private sector drug tests come from the private sector.
That is where the blame goes.
Dave W., I think you (and most of us) are overlooking
something.
It's unlikely that Matt Welch would kill hundreds if he crashed his
laptop, but in every job there is the possibility of misbehavior,
even extreme misbehavior. Sexual harrassment, for example. Or
violence in the workplace. I don't know how common these are, but
when they happen, they can be very high-profile and destructive to
company morale and image, especially the violent part.
If one day Matt went wilding in the L.A. Times editorial suite, and
it was later discovered that he was an aficionado of reefer, heroin
and angel dust, surely one of the charges leveled against his
employer would be, "Didn't you take even the most basic steps to
find out whether your potential employee was a drug fiend? Not even
a simple piss test that no one except a druggie would object
to?"
It's very similar to the malpractice cases that encourage doctors
to have their patients undergo tests that probably aren't
necessary. You cover your ass so you don't get sued.
This drives up market demand for employees who are willing to take
drug tests, and as long as the costs of submitting to them are
relatively low, they will be widespread and little-resisted.
There is an element of government coercion in this, in that
government propaganda inflates people's fears of drug users, and in
that the gov't-run monopoly court system is seen as a
not-very-reliable way of obtaining justice.
|1.31.06 @ 12:48PM|#
WHAT?!?!? the government does little to encourage drug
testing!?!?!?!? HUH?
So drug testing takes off in the military (under reagan if I'm not
mistaken), then get's extended to all "governmental employees",
then it's increased to also include those companies that have
contracts with the government. Add in that these tests are directed
at finding those substances the government has chosen to focus on,
and I really can't understand how you could say that.
I mean sure, they don't have ads out there promoting it, but it's
hardly necessary when you've been priming society for it for nearly
25 years.
|1.31.06 @ 12:54PM|#
"Why do we always have to get derailed into libertarian
policy fantasyland here? Politics has no bearing on
this."
...
"Now that we know he's so cheap, everything he does or says, or
ever has done or said, declines in value accordingly."
You're kidding, right?
|1.31.06 @ 12:56PM|#
I probably should have paid more attention to this statement of
Dave W's:
Having drug tests doesn't help in most tort suits (exceptions,
as usual, for train engineers and the like).
What about more extreme cases where a crime is committed
in the workplace? Even if the employer isn't found liable in court,
it's still an image/morale problem.
If you look at most employee handbooks (I've helped edit several),
you'll see that policies on workplace safety, sexual harassment,
and violence in the workplace are grouped together. These issues
are at least perceived to be associated by most
employers.
Also, check out:
http://workplace.samhsa.gov/WPResearch/WPViolence/WPSecurity.html
See how all these junkies are killing, assaulting and stealing in
the workplace? (Actually, it doesn't take more than a quick second
look at the stats to see that alcohol is linked to many more
problems than illegal drugs are, but the Health and Human Services
site conflates the two very nicely.)
Even if the actual problems are rare -- but spectacular when they
happen -- people will take the perceived preventive action if it's
relatively low-cost, as it appears to be.
|1.31.06 @ 12:58PM|#
Oops, edit:
If you look at most employee handbooks (I've helped edit several),
you'll see that policies on workplace safety, sexual harassment,
violence in the workplace and drug use/testing are
grouped together. These issues are at least perceived to be
associated by most employers.
|1.31.06 @ 1:00PM|#
Oh, and I agree with mediageek that poster "Totally Serious" cannot be taken seriously.
Dave W.|1.31.06 @ 1:10PM|#
Fyodor:
You define choice based upon coercion (or lack thereof). Coercion =
non-choice; non-coercion = choice. When I talk about your
definition of choice, this is the Fyodorian definition of choice I
am referring to. My definition of choice agrees that coercion
largely precludes choice, but also assumes that choice can be
reduced or eliminated (or increased) through means other than
coercion.
I don't think that we will resolve our substantive issues here, but
hopefully this clears up any definitional issues.
fyodor|1.31.06 @ 1:12PM|#
Stevo Darkly,
Thanks for the interesting posts. It's always easy to accuse others
of irrational behavior when one does not wear their shoes. OTOH,
trends do sometimes take on a life of their own as they travel
through society, and Greg does a good job pointing out how
government played a major role in starting this one. Personally,
I'm skeptical that pot smokers, at least those who dress nicely and
show up to work on time, are a statistically significant greater
risk for workplace violence or harrassment than their non-toking
counterparts. Hopefully we'll get to the point someday where
whatever businesses do, it's more in line with reality than I
personally believe it to be now, whether that means less testing or
more meaningful testing. And the less government intereferes with
that process, the more efficiently it will likely proceed.
fyodor|1.31.06 @ 1:19PM|#
Dave W,
No I did NOT define choice based on coercion or lack thereof. I
made the distinction between choices that involve coercion
and those that do not. Now, sometimes people refer to choices that
involve coercion as not genuine choices (when the pro-legal
abortion movement calls itself "pro-choice", they are committing
this very error), and I may have fallen into that slightly sloppy
word usage myself at times. But the post that you quoted made quite
clear that I was saying that any choice is a choice, no ifs or buts
about it. But I also chose to draw a distinction between those
choices that involve coercion and those that do not. The rest of my
argument proceeds from that distinction. If you do not understand
that, you do not understand anything I am saying.
Dave W.|1.31.06 @ 1:19PM|#
Greg,
I was careful to qualify my previous post to make it clear that the
gov't was not encouraging drug testing in the private sector. I do
not consider government contracting as the private sector because
the government is the customer. If things were economically
rational, I would expect drug testing in the military and gov't
contract sectors to *decrease* the amount of testing in other
sectors, as talented but drug-using employees migrated from the
military to the non-military sectors of the economy.
T.:
The government drug laws may be a neccessary condition, but they
are not sufficient. It is illegal to evade taxes, but I have yet to
see a company that wanted to see tax returns out of its employees
to make sure that it was hiring honest folks who have good
discretion and accountability when it comes to handling money.
|1.31.06 @ 1:31PM|#
Dave W., that is an excellent point about tax returns. OTOH,
withholding requirements do draft businesses into enforcing the tax
code.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a public policy
element here, no two ways about it. And I'm pointing it out to
offer a third option for libertarians who don't like the tests but
don't want them to criticize something that they perceive as a
spontaneous exercise in freedom of association. This way they can
criticize the piss test and still win the pissing contest.
Dave W.|1.31.06 @ 1:37PM|#
Stevo said: If you look at most employee handbooks (I've
helped edit several), you'll see that policies on workplace safety,
sexual harassment, and violence in the workplace are grouped
together. These issues are at least perceived to be associated by
most employers.
I think employers want to foster this impression. Employers would
love to have everybody believe that their liability would increase
without drug testing. Then people would be less inclined to
complain about drug tests. Edit the handbooks, but don't confuse
them for casebooks, which read very differently, on the
whole.
Fyodor:
Okay, you acknowledge the concept of choices that do not involve
coercion. Am I still correct in assuming that you do not believe
that maximizing choice, in the context of non-coercive choice, is
an appropriate government function?
fyodor|1.31.06 @ 3:01PM|#
Dave W,
Am I still correct in assuming that you do not believe that
maximizing choice, in the context of non-coercive choice, is an
appropriate government function?
Yeah, for all intents and purposes, I'd go along with that. Though
I'm more driven to libertarianism by the principle of noninitiation
of force than appropriate government functions per se. In a magical
world where government could somehow increase choice without
resorting to coercion, my opposition to such would be tepid. But as
you may alrady have noted, I see such a scenario as illusory. I
know some folks cringe when I (or we) say this, but how else does
government operate except by coercion? Its funding comes
through taxes, which are not paid voluntarily. Its primary means of
doing business is to pass laws, which are enforced by the threats
against what are normally considered one's rights. And frankly, I'm
much more skeptical than you are that experts at the top can create
a better and more efficient society through top-down rules than can
the free market acting on its own dispersed dynamism. So all these
aspects go into why "maximizing choice" is not an
appropriate government function. Because we don't live in
the magical world where government can truly achieve it and do so
noncoercively. That magical world is so unrealistic it's probably
not really worth discussing, except maybe for very abstract
theorizing. That's how I see it.
|1.31.06 @ 3:08PM|#
Dave you said
"I understand the drive to foist blame for evrything on the gov't
because they screw up so often, but private sector drug tests come
from the private sector. That is where the blame goes."
You are flat out wrong. The feds require drug testing for many jobs
in the private sector. Furthermore the feds have used the DEA and
other agencies to push for drug testing even when it is not
required by federal statute.
The current drug testing industry would not exist if it were not
for government action.
|1.31.06 @ 3:22PM|#
Several folks have said they can see the sense in requiring drug
testing for certain jobs, like heavy equipment ops, bus drivers,
etc. I suppose it's to determine whether there's any impairment of
motor function, etc.
Can we agree that there are ways to impair one's motor function
that do not involve illegal drugs? So, why does it make sense to
require drug testing on the pretext of impairment? Why not just
test motor function?
|1.31.06 @ 5:35PM|#
AFAIK, there is a synergy between government contracts, where testing is encouraged if not required, and culpability of the employer. From what I understand, it is less legally troublesome for an employer to require all employees to be tested for drugs than trying to pinpoint exactly which employees should. Also, if there are shared systems, how would you make sure the uncleared employees can't take advantage of that.
fyodor|1.31.06 @ 5:47PM|#
Fortisquince,
It's often difficult to figure out why someone else does what he
does without walking a mile in his shoes. Perhaps if you asked a
CEO or Human Resources Dept head that question, he or she could
answer better than I or anyone else here. Nevertheless, the
implications of your question would seem to back those here who
have claimed that the government has at least something to do with
the inclination of private enterprises to test for illegal drug
use. One possibility that occurs offhand to me at the moment is
that the illegality of illegal drugs makes them less popularly
used, thus businesses have less to lose in terms of driving away
potential employees and pissing off current ones than they would if
they forbade the offwork use of alcohol. In other words, testing
for alcohol may have as much benefit as testing for illegal drugs
but also carry a greater price. As has been mentioned somewhere on
this thread already, government propoganda has likely played a role
as well, perhaps in encouraging people to think the users of
illegal drugs are more likely than casual alcohol users to have a
"problem" such that they could not keep their use from affecting
their work. And maybe that viewpoint is correct, though I don't
think so myself. It's the libertarian position that it's up to
private individuals (or groupings of such, as in business ventures)
to decide for themselves what makes sense, regardless of whether
you or I (or Dave W) always agree. We take this position first and
foremost because it is everyone's right to make those decisions for
himself free of coercion, which government regulations to the
contrary would entail. We also believe that as flawed as freely
made decisions may sometimes be, they are still generally superior
to decisions forced on an individual or group by someone else.
|2.1.06 @ 1:02PM|#
what clouds this whole discussion is the current size of the
government. For example, given how pervasive the drug war is (hell,
they start the indoctrination in elementary school with the DARE
program); it's damn near impossible to argue that private
enterprises weren't at least slightly influenced to perform the
tests by the governments position.
Now, if the government had never gotten into the business of
policing my piss and blood, then I would have very little problem
with any company that wanted to piss test, because it would most
likely be nowhere as near widespread........thus leaving more
choice to employees.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245