The price of a life

I’ve got an issue with drug testing in the workplace.

Frankly, my opposition has little to do with drugs. It’s more about the motivations behind the practice, the rights of employees and the fact that it’s the first step down a slippery slope.

I don’t believe drug testing, in many cases, is about ensuring proper work performance. You don’t need a drug test to determine if someone is doing a good job.

And I don’t think the argument ends when I concede that I don’t have to work for a company that institutes policies that I can’t stomach. It’s a fine way to sidestep the discussion, but there are larger social issues involved.

And those issues often start with companies justifying their drug-testing policies by pointing to rising health-care costs. In a nutshell, the argument goes that if an employee uses drugs — whether at work or at home — it will ultimately increase the price of health care, which impacts everyone.

So, in essence, the employee loses his right to privacy because it’s not about just him. It’s a well-intentioned argument, but where does it stop?

Some companies have nonsmoking policies that extend beyond the workplace. If you smoke in the privacy of your own home, you could lose your job.

Smoking cigarettes is incredibly unhealthy, but so is overeating. Silly as it might sound, couldn’t the argument extend to the employee who goes home and regularly eats three hamburgers and an entire lemon meringue pie?

Really, it’s not that far-fetched considering that some companies actively promote a healthy lifestyle for employees. How long before that promotion becomes a mandate?

And at the top of this slippery slope are illegal drugs. They’re an easy target because you’re not supposed to be using them in the first place. But the reasons behind testing for them have little to do with the illegality of the substance.

I don’t like drug testing in the workplace because I don’t think a company should ever be able to tell me that I can’t sit down on my couch and eat two entire bags of Doritos while I watch a movie. On the surface, it’s a ridiculous argument, but it cuts to the heart of what I see as a line that keeps getting more and more blurred between the rights of workers and those of their employers.

Sometimes, however, that line needs to disappear completely. There are jobs where any theory I might have against drug testing takes a backseat to the reality of the workplace.

On May 1, a new law will take effect mandating drug and alcohol testing for employees in the state’s construction industry who work on public-works projects with prevailing wage.

It features all the trimmings of any other testing policy, but it’s got an immediacy that many of the others lack. It’s about right now. It’s about putting others in actual physical danger because one guy showed up on a job site impaired.

There’s no theory at play here. It’s not centered on a tabulation of long-term, health-care costs.

There’s just a guy in a crane holding a ton of steel over your head and your right to know that he’s completely focused on his job.