From: davids@gardener.lanl.gov (David Simmons)
Subject: Re: Northwest (was Re: Things to make flying more comfortable)
Originator: davids@feynman.lanl.gov
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:54:15 GMT


In article <1992Aug25.060805.11817@openage.openage.com>, ghost@openage.openage.com (Glenn Host) writes:
|> henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch) writes:
|> 
|> >glockner-gregory@CS.YALE.EDU (Gregory Glockner) wrote: 
|> >->FYI: Things have changed in this respect at Northwest.  When I interned
|> >->last summmer at NWA's management, I was subjected to a drug test.  I
|> >->was also fingerprinted.  (I'm told that they no longer fingerprint).
|> >->Pilots were given alcohol tests as well as drug tests.
|> 
|> >this is a good reason to *not* fly northwest ... drug tests for
|> >everyone as they walk in the door is not only useless, but an invasion
|> >of personal privacy.
|> 
|> 
|> Of course there are those who will value safety and reliability over
|> personal privacy.  A company should have the right to screen its
|> employees against drugs and that is the best way.  It you don;t
|> want to be screened for personal privacy or duggie habbits don't
|> apply - no one is making you work there.  If I was an employee
|> I would feel a lot safer knowing my fellow employees were not on
|> drugs.  I have been in places were accidents were caused by
|> workers using drugs off and on work.
|> 
|> A good reason to ride on Northwest.
|> 
|> -- 
|> 
|> Very grateful guest of Openage - the best SCO service shop in the area
|> ************* my views represent no one - not even myself. ****************

<clamber up on soap box.....>

VERY true!  Drug tests for employees as they walk in the door are FAR from
"useless."  Drug use (and for some reason, alcohol mostly escapes being
classified as a drug!) can cost a business--ANY business, not just an
airline!--a fortune.  Ignoring liablity for accidents caused by workers
under the influence of drugs (and I include alcohol in the definition of
drugs), the costs are staggering.  I haven't the statistics in front of
me right now, but costs in terms of lost days, because drug users tend
to miss more days of work than non-drug-users, and poor performance are
very high.  Add in liability for accidents, added insurance costs, broken
widgets because stoner-Bob/Betty broke that cool thing they were playing
with, and you rapidly approach staggering (in terms of cost, not ability
to locomote, or lack thereof).

Some may not like it, but it is true that non drug users tend to
be more productive, more reliable, and safer workers.  Remember,
this is IN GENERAL.  There will always be the non-using employee who
can't show up on time or do the job well, just as there will be a 
using employee that is responsible and efficient.  These are the 
exception to the rule.

When it comes to AIRLINES being able to drug-screen:  Not only should
they, it should be mandatory.  Remember, we are talking about a business
that sends huge pieces of machinery >35,000 feet into the air, full
of hapless, helpless bystanders.  Airlines have a responsibility to
make D*MN sure that EVERYTHING is in as near perfect shape as possible.
If Joe/Jane Mechanic is stoned and misplaces his/her wrench in the
turbine and the whole thing goes screaming into the sea, I think that
is an irresponsible act, not only by Joe/Jane Mechanic, but by the
airline for failing to keep a stoned mechanic out of the turbine.

<blah>, <blah>, <blah>.

<get pushed off soap box>
-- 

David G. Simmons
davids@lanl.gov

If I said it, LANL didn't... 

-- 

David G. Simmons
davids@lanl.gov

Newsgroups: rec.travel.air