Just a couple of thoughts on a hot summer day:
In his opinion regarding drug-testing in the workplace (June 13, Readers’ Views, The Advocate), Michael Polito, Ph.D., former scientist, states that, “Regarding the workplace, such testing is humiliating, dehumanizing and lowers morale because an employee is, de facto, guilty until proven innocent. And secondarily, it is a huge waste of money.”
I can only conclude that Polito has never spent much time in an industrial environment where the dangers, both to the user and to co-workers, would be extreme were an employee, for example, to be high on cocaine. The heavy industrial company I work for is a drug-free workplace, not only for the safety of the specific employee, but for all employees and the public at large. My company makes it a point when hiring to emphasize to the applicant that the company is drug-free, and that the applicant must pass a drug test on hiring and will be subject to random drug tests thereafter. Any applicant who feels that such testing is humiliating, dehumanizing or would lower the applicant’s morale, is most welcome and encouraged to apply elsewhere. My company considers the modest cost of maintaining a drug-free workplace to be well worth the cost!
On another matter, I am struck with the thought that if the government is allowed to require any citizen to take a specific action, such as carrying medical insurance (without getting into the question as to whether this is the best means to accomplish a specific goal), then what constitutional protection do we have from any requirement of the government, such as legally demanding that all employers immediately hire an additional 10 percent of their present workforce, whether needed or not, with the additional requirement that such employees could never be laid off?
Should we all be learning to speak Greek?