When I retire, at age sixty two, from the Airhead Corporation
(not their real name), I really didn't retire.
I was fired for refusing to take a drug test.
I was fired for resisting this final affront to my human
dignity.
I worked for Airhead for twenty years and for the first eight
or ten years it was a pleasant enough place to work although
racism hung heavy in the air.
I'll cover the racism later.
A year or so before I was fired, "big brother" passed laws
permitting employers to require their employees to submit to
drug tests.
In effect, this allowed Airhead abd other large corporations
to invade their employees bodies, to demand access to their
employees medical records, and to inhibit their right of free
association with people of their choice.
When I received notification one night that I was to report
for a drug test the next afternoon before work, I, of course,
refused to submit to testing.
I think that at this point I should make it clear to the
reader that I am not a drug user nor am I in sympathy with
those who abuse drugs.
I do, however, believe very strongly in freedom of religion,
the law be damned.
Before I was fired I had, as I said, worked for Airhead
corporation for twenty years prior to when they demanded that I
submit to drug testing.
I reported to work punctually every day.
I was always sober both on the job and off, and I still am.
Not once in twenty years did anyone have any reason to think
that I was under the influence of any chemical, legal or
illegal.
I has decided much earlier that I would not take a drug test
because I was aware of how unfairly the program was
administered.
I was aware that although the drug testing program was,
obstensibly, in place to insure safety in the workplace
nothing was being done to stop the abuse of alcohol on the
job.
I worked the afternoon shift and occasionally was asked to
work a double shift.
Every morning that I was there I was appalled at the number
of staggering drunks that reported for and were allowed to
work.
The foreman of the maintenance department achieved a measure
of notoriety when he asked about the drunks in his department.
His answer, "We can cover for them!"
I must point out that that department, at the time I left had
had only one black employee during my twenty stay and he
finally left in disgust.
After he left another black man (an Airforce veteran with
experience in hydrolics and electricity) applied for a job in
that department but was turned away even though the company
has frequently hired men into that department with little to
no experience.
Although Airhead claimed to not be ablr to monitor alcohol,
the fact is, technology to monitor alcohol abuse was in place
long before drug testing was implemented.
It is cheap, and results are available immediately.
The results are accurate, unlike those of drug tests.
I've never regretted my decision to not take a drug test.
For five weeks I was badgered to change my mind.
The exact words used were, "You are putting is in an
untenable position."
My reply, "It's simple, all you have to do is fire me as your
rules dictate."
Had I submitted to this indignity it would have violated every
principle I hold dear.
I could not have lived with myself and I doubt that my wife
would have wanted to live with me either since we had agreed
to live by our principles before we ever wed.
The day after I was fired I was invited to a gathering of a
small religious group that just happens to smoke marijuana as
a part of their religious practice.
These are not wild eyed crazies who simply are looking for
an excuse to get high.
Most of this group are responsible people with respectable
businesses and jobs who obey the law, however, their religion
demands allegiance to a higher law.
To shorten the story I sat in a room where marijuana was being
smoked for a couple of hours.
At no time did I smoke any nor did I get a contact high.
It wasn't until the next day that I began to realize that if
I were to take a drug test I would test positive for drug use
even though I had not used any drug.
The only way I could have avoided this dilemma would have to
avoid this religious celebration with my friends.
To shorten the discussion, neither the Airhead corporation nor
the U.S. government will ever legislate who my friends will be
or the criteria for that association.
As an incidental point and, although I cannot prove it I would
bet that no executive of the Airhead corporation or for that
matter of almost any company that endorses drug testing, has
ever submitted to a drug test.
It may seem naive on my part and as comedian Whoopi Goldberg
once said "Myabe it's because I just got straight," however,
I always understood that within a corporation everyone is an
employee and is subject to company rules, including the
C.E.O. -----
Silly me!
Drug tests are a totally unacceptable invasion of privacy,
obviously intended to give our corporate masters one more bit
of power over our lives.
They are unfairly administered and are easily defeated.
At that time a couple of ounces of vinegar would have
changed the pH of my body and rendered the results of the test
unusable but, by doing that I would have violated my own
principles.
Besides, had I done that I would have missed the pleasure of
upsetting some people who are completely without principle
and totally without ethics.
If, as so many large employers suggest, drug testing is
intended for the employees benefit and safety, why do no
companies test for alcohol intoxication?
Why do few if any of those in the hierachy of those companies
pursuing a policy of testing for drugs submit themselves for
testing?
Is Drug testing the real life "Invasion of The Body
Snatchers?"
I think it may be.