- Dear Jeff,
-
-
- With all that has been written concerning our eroding
rights, I am shocked to find practically nothing on the blatant violation
of rights faced by nearly every member of the US workforce. I refer to
the fact that most US employers require prospective and current employees
to surrender their Fourth Amendment right to privacy as a condition for
employment. Specifically: invasive drug testing. Even more shocking is
the fact that most US workers give in to this travesty without thinking
about it.
-
- In the mid 80s when invasive drug testing began,
I was outraged and certain that the US workforce would not long stand for
it. I made a personal pledge to never submit. I was correct to make the
commitment, wrong on my prediction. Since then, what I had of a career
has ended.
There are many reasons to oppose and resist invasive drug testing.
Among them are:
-
- 1. It is an unwarranted violation
of my Fourth Amendment right to privacy: "The right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." [emphasis mine].
I must prove my innocence when there is no charge, no evidence against
me, no indication of any crime whatever.
2. It violates my Fifth Amendment rights for I am required to provide
evidence against myself, again even when there is no evidence of any crime
whatever.
3. Invasive drug testing is ineffective. There are many companies who
now provide inexpensive and effective products to allow anyone to beat
an invasive drug test. Go to a good search engine and put in the phrase
"beat drug testing" or "pass any drug test". Also,
passing a one-time test does not mean that a person is not using drugs
on the job. The whole principle of one-time, invasive drug testing is absurd
on the face of it.
4. Inexpensive and effective alternatives to invasive testing are
available. A simple computer program which tests an employee's hand-eye
coordination is non-invasive, can be given at any time (more realistic
than one-time, invasive testing) and it cannot be beaten!
5. It is unfair and is applied selectively. The highest officials in
a company are often exempt from such testing. CEOs responsible for billions
are not required to submit. Our highest elected and appointed officials
are not required. Yet, if I want to get a job digging ditches, I must submit.
Why?
-
- Now, I understand that the Supreme Court has ruled
that invasive drug testing to be legal. If a person decides to voluntarily
give up his or her rights, go ahead. But in a truly free society, there
would be real alternatives. One looking for work could find, in a competitive
market, companies which did not require such testing. This is no longer
the case. I have no figures to quote, but it has been my experience that
maybe 1 in 100 companies do not require invasive drug testing as a condition
of employment and they are always small, privately owned and operated firms
(God bless them!).
Some argue that we give up many of our rights when we go to work and
privacy is one of them. This is pure sophistry. I am not required to surrender
my freedom of speech, nor my freedom of religion nor any other right. When
I am at work my rights are secure and untouched. Yet I am required
to surrender my privacy to get a job. And that right to privacy is like
virginity; once it is gone, it is gone forever.
I have a BS in Engineering from the University of Illinois, a BS in
Journalism from the University of Oregon. I have worked in the emerging
field of commercial space (I have built 70,000 lb. thrust rocket engines
with my own hands.), I have successfully worked as a mechanic, laboratory
technician, I taught myself AutoCAD and worked as a computer drafter/designer.
Now, at the age of 54 years, after being unemployed or underemployed for
the last 12 years, I am facing living on the street at the end of this
month because I can not pay the rent. Why? Because I am a drug addict or
criminal? No! Because I lack education and experience? No! Because I am
an unreliable worker? No! It is because I demand to be judged by the quality
of my character, not the quality of my urine. Because I refuse to surrender
my God-given, constitutionally protected right to privacy for a few pieces
of silver.
I am an amateur student of history. When my friends tell me that I should
just "give in", that my stand "isn't worth it", I remember
the great debt we all owe to those who went before. And I remember this
commitment: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm
reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to
each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred Honor." I am too
small a man to call myself a "patriot", yet the witness of history
calls me to something greater.
Just say, "No!"
Respectfully,
- Paul S. Szymanski
|
