Why I won't take a pre-employment drug test

I’ve been looking for work since graduating from the University of Oregon this past March.  I’m willing to do pretty much anything I’m physically capable of doing.  I’m 51 now, so roofing isn’t really an option.  My degree is in Digital Art (graphic art and multimedia design).  There are so many graphic designers and artists with years of experience currently looking for work that my search as been difficult, to say the least.  I’ve had only two actual, person-to-person interviews and neither of them were for jobs requiring a degree in design (or any degree at all, for that matter).  It’s frustrating.  But I’m willing to accept the reality of the economic situation.  What I am not willing to accept, is the attitude on the part of employers that I owe them something other than a verifiable employment and education history which, I have in spades.  I refuse to submit to any “pre-employment" drug test.

An employer has every right to investigate my character and background.  For them, I represent a potential investment in time and training.  I will represent them and their interests to their customers and the public.  I may have access to their cash, bank accounts, proprietary recipes and methods, processes and alliances.  They have a right to make a reasonable determination concerning my depth of character, the quality of my skill sets and education, my ability to perform well under pressure and as a member of a team; my leadership and followership skills, my honesty, stability, mental acuity and more.  But they do not have the moral authority to perform a body cavity search by any means, including urinalysis, solely to determine my “fitness” for an available position for which I have yet to be selected.

An employer can determine my fitness for a position by investigating my documented background and prior behavior.  My prior behavior is already in the public domain, so-to-speak, since I have already lived 51 years and left behind a long paper trail recording my actions.

My financial records are available to any employer who can properly justify access to  them.  My current debtors such as my landlord, utility and phone companies are available to provide up-to-date information.  I have university transcripts available to any employer who asks for them.  I am willing to provide samples of prior work, references of character, contact information for prior employers and even take an aptitude test.  But I will not provide a urine, blood, stool, or DNA sample without probable cause.  An offer of employment is not probable cause.

I served in the United States Air Force for 21 years, during which time, I held a Top Secret/Special Compartmentalized Information clearance which, required that I submit to random, no-notice polygraph examinations as well as the standard no-notice urinalysis testing all military personnel are subject to.  I never failed.  My record stands on its own.  I’m not going to prove my innocence or justify my existence to anyone anymore.

If my military record and documented prior behavior is not good enough to gain an employer’s trust, why should I trust them?  If there is that much mistrust before our relationship even begins, what assurances do I have that it will dissipate?  What guarantees do I get that my paycheck will come on time and clear the bank; that my supervisor will treat me with respect; that I will receive proper on-the-job training and adequate support; that my private life will remain private?

I understand that the Supreme Court granted this “right” to private employers.  But that doesn’t mean I have to allow them to exercise it on me.  Legal right notwithstanding, I reject an employer’s moral authority to conduct such an invasive search of my person.  I have nothing to hide and yet, I have everything to hide.  My privacy has value, but only so much as I am willing to grant to it and then defend.

I want a job.  I need a job.  But I am not willing to allow a potential employer to violate the sanctity of my privacy in exchange for one.  The price is too high.

The pre-employment drug test has become almost ubiquitous in this country and it worries me.  What’s next, a pre-employment review of one’s internet search history?  And what purpose would that serve?  Indeed, what purpose does a pre-employment drug test serve?  Are they really that effective?  Or, maybe more importantly, are they really that accurate?

In the Air Force, the urinalysis test was conducted this way: the test subject was accompanied into the latrine with another person who acted as a monitor.  The monitor (appointed by the Staff Judge Advocate, the military equivalent of a District Attorney) held the cup above (higher than) their head so as to ensure it remained visible to all parties at all times.  The subject would step up to the urinal or toilet.  The monitor would remove the lid from the cup and hand the cup to the subject who, would then urinate into the cup while the monitor watched.  The rule was very clear: the monitor must see the urine exit the body and enter the cup.  The monitor would then be handed the cup with the subject’s urine.  Then, once the cap was placed back on, the monitor would again, hold the cup above their head while both individuals exited the latrine.  Then the cup would be sealed, signed and verified by the monitor, the test subject and the collector.  Chain of custody was strictly controlled at all times just as it would be if it were evidence in a drug trial for indeed, it might very well be.

Only two test facilities in the United States were authorized to conduct urinalysis testing on samples provided by military and federal law enforcement personnel.  These facilities were controlled and monitored as tightly as those coding the encryption keys used to secure classified communications lines.

To my knowledge, this methodology is not employed in the private sector.  I do not believe that a court appointed monitor is provided to observe the urine physically exiting the test subject’s body.  I also do not know, exactly, what the chain of custody is but I suspect that it could very well be tampered with.

Suppose I, a 51 year-old, drug free adult were to submit to a pre-employment drug test for a job I was fully qualified for and really wanted.  What assurances do I get that my sample will not be mishandled or that the results would not be miscommunicated to my prospective employer?

The pre-employment drug test is here to stay, I’m afraid.  At this point, I don’t see it going away any time soon although I hope that its use will eventually fade with time.  We’ll see.  But the line between what is considered private and public has moved greatly in recent years and continues to move, unfortunately, at the speed of technology.  Recent laws prohibiting insurance companies from examining your DNA have been placed on the books but there is no guarantee that those laws will stay there or be adequately enforced.  If insurance companies are allowed access based on the argument that they are making an investment in you, what is to stop an employer from making the same argument?

Man has only those rights he is willing to defend.  Privacy is one of them.  Our fears drive us to give up our privacy in exchange for a sense of security that doesn’t really exist and in the end, we end up with neither privacy nor security.