TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> Well, for me, it's a dual issue. First, my employers are just that. They do
> not own me, and as such, I don't feel obliged to provide them with my bodily
> fluids. It's degrading, dehumanizing, and presumptuous.
But it is okay to sue companies for zillions when some doofus offends your
tender sensibilities.
People treat corporations as evil entities and then wonder why those same
corporations treat them like slaves?
It is a two way street. If you respect your company they will respect you. If
you treat all corporations as inherently evil, they will treat you like crap.
Who started this little vicious circle - it doesn't matter. Somebody has to
stop it.
Drug testing and other inhumane company policies are simply an outgrowth of
people treating corporations like their own personal sugar daddy. Listen to the
incessant whines on this board. "Oh, my big nasty company doesn't love and
protect my tender uniqueness - I think I'll sue the crap out of them and
badmouth them everywhere in the world."
Gee - I wonder why they treat you like crap? If you are not willing to help
the company get to where they want to be, then why should they help you at all?
> My personal beliefs
> are that the War on Some Drugs is a travesty. It's stupid, it's patronizing,
> and it's Unamerican, and I think those who buy into it are naive and easily
> swayed--not qualities I look for in an employer.
Personally, I think the war on drugs is stupid as well. I think all drugs
should be legalized and taxed to hell. Let the losers pay for schools and
roads. But, that's another debate, not for this board.
The qualities I want in an employer are fairness. If I work hard for them,
they'll reward me. If I am decent and fair, they are decent and fair. If things
go bad, they are honest with me and let me in on the situation. The mistake
most companies make is to allow people to avoid responsibility. The mistake
employees make is to assume they are not part of the problem and shirk
responsibility.
> I don't have a problem
> passing a drug test, assuming the results are accurate. I do have a problem
> with a company that sees fit to treat me like chattel and eye me with
> suspicion for no reason. Besides, if those robber barons want to drink my
> urine, they can danged well pay for it just like everyone else.
See but the flip side of this is are you willing to endure a two day long
interview? Would you tolerate being asked about your personal life? What if an
interviewer asked you "do you do drugs recreationally?"
I agree, drug tests are probably a waste of time. The ideal way to spot losers
is to interview the hell out of people. Unfortunately, with a super-tight job
market and the failure of most organizations to implement real and useful
hiring guidelines - you get knee-jerk drug testing measures. I don't blame the
companies for doing it. It is better than nothing.
> Second, to me, drug testing shows poor judgement and poor money management.
> Lab testing is expensive and unreliable, with little real value. And even if
> it were 100% reliable, it would still only catch those who were unable to
> abstain for the short amount of time drugs stay in the body.
Compared to the cost of ONE person who destroys a client relationship or causes
a fatal industrial accident because he was high - the cost is quite negligible.
Again - yes there are better ways to detect incompetence. But without such
measures, drug testing is better than nothing.
> Wait a minute. People's lives have been ruined by false positives. What
> about that guy who couldn't race in the Tour de France because he failed a
> drug test after drinking safe, legal herbal tea? He can't exactly call a
> Tour de France do-over, can he? He's not the only one, either. Every time
> you see these statistics showing that the majority of positives are
> accurate, remember that each false positive is some innocent person whose
> life was disrupted to some degree. That is not an 'acceptable' loss,
> particularly for so nebulous a gain.
We're not talking capital punishment here. Yes it is a terrible tragedy when
people are falsely accused. But you could say the same for interviewing in
general. ALL testing has some chance for error and subjectivity.
Andrew Plato
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Learn how to develop HTML-based Help with Macromedia Dreamweaver!
Dec. 7-8, 2000, Orlando, FL -- $100 discount for STC members. http://www.weisner.com/training/dreamweaver_help.htm or 800-646-9989.
Your web site localized into 32 languages? Maybe not now, but sooner than
you think. Download ForeignExchange's FREE paper, "3 steps to successful
translation management" at http://www.fxtrans.com/3steps.html?tw.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
