They certainly used to, and still do in many places. I turned down a job at Xerox PARC in 1990 because of their ill conceived drug testing policy, after taking and passing their drug test. The actual employees at PARC were overwhelmingly against the corporate drug testing policy, and regretted but supported me turning down the job offer, and Xerox eventually changed their ill conceived policy.

http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/hemp/urine-saga.html

Conclusion

At both urine tests I've taken (the practice test at the University of Maryland Health Center, and the real drug screening test for Xerox at Bethesda Roche Labs), the person in charge didn't want to let me submit to the test. Both times, I had to ask their supervisors to override their decisions, appealing for special permission to piss in a bottle. I was always forthright about my belief that urine testing is a violation of my privacy, even though I was compromising my principles and submitting to the test anyway.

The way I've been treated in both cases confirms my belief that urine tests are intended to discourage people like me from even applying in the first place. Unfortunatly Xerox didn't notify me of their drug testing policy until after I had applied for the job, been accepted, and chosen a project. Had I known about their drug testing policy in advance, I would have acted on what I believe, by never applying to Xerox for employment.

The people who administer my drug tests treated me as if they didn't expect people like me to ever submit to them, unless we're crazed criminals trying to cheat our way into urine sensative positions. Anyone with the integrity to refuse a urine is in the same class as unqualified applicants and drug abusers: unfit to work at Xerox. The only drug abusers Xerox will employ are those unscrupulous enough to cheat on the test (which is certainly possible despite the chain of custody procedure followed by Roche Labs).

If you don't want you or your children to be treated this way, please help end the drug war!

http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/hemp/xerox-letter.html

Dear Mr. Allaire:

In February of 1990, I applied for a summer internship at Xerox PARC by sending in my resume along with recommendations from Ben Shneiderman (faculty and supervisor), P. S. Krishnaprasad (faculty), Mitch Bradley (supervisor), Gudrun Polak (supervisor), and Mark Weiser (faculty, supervisor, and CSL lab director).

I was accepted and invited to join PARC for the summer, and given a list of three projects proposed by groups that wanted to sponsor me. I was excited by all three, and Christian Jacobi's proposal meshed perfectly with my interests and experience. However, when I discussed the position with Eric Bier, I learned that to qualify for the job, I would have to consent to having my urine collected and tested for evidence of drug use.

I object to not being notified of the drug test until after I had applied for the job, been accepted, and chosen a project. The announcement of summer internships at PARC broadcast to the Internet should have mentioned the drug testing requirement, along with the resume and reference requirements, so that I would have known not to apply to Xerox in the first place.

Because I wanted to work at PARC, and I had already gone through much effort to qualify for the job, I took the drug test, against my principles, and passed. I regret taking the test, compromising myself, and selling out to a company that does not respect the privacy of its employees.

I went to Roche Labs in Bethesda, Maryland to submit to the test, where I was treated rudely by the lab technician. She refused to administer the test, but after two hours her supervisor finally intervened and I was permitted to drain my bladder into a specimen jar. I related the details of my experience to Bill Skinner, and he requested that Bethesda Roche Labs be removed from Xerox's list of approved urine collection agencies. But, unfortunately, he could do nothing to address the real problem that most troubles me: Xerox's ill-conceived urine testing policy.

Screening for drug use before employment is an ineffective method of providing a drug free work place. It also invades my privacy, casts doubt on my integrity, and violates my dignity. The policy makes it harder for Xerox to hire good honest people, because it discourages them from even applying for the job. Had I known that Xerox had such a policy, before I had otherwise qualified for and been accepted to the job, I would have been sorry, but would not have wasted my time.

Even though I passed the drug test, and am completely qualified for the summer internship at Xerox PARC, I must turn it down because of the drug testing policy. I couldn't feel good about working for Xerox after the violation of my privacy, the ordeal I've been through, and the lack of respect I've been shown. The decision was a painful one: regardless of the cloud of urine testing hanging over it, Xerox PARC is a most prestigious place, where I could have been exposed to many great ideas, and met some of the best people in the profession.

I wish I could have spent the summer at Xerox PARC, but instead I have taken a full time job at Sun Microsystems, a company that respects its employees enough to provide a drug free work place without invading their privacy. I won't be looking for other employment in the forseeable future, but I would be delighted to hear when Xerox has changed its drug testing policy. Until such a time, I hope that potential job applicants learn about the policy before they decide to apply.

I sympathize with my colleagues who work in positions they would no longer be willing to accept on moral grounds, and who have been forced to compromise their principles because of other responsibilities.

"What are politicians going to tell people when the Constitution is gone and we still have a drug problem?"

-- William Simpson, A.C.L.U.

Sincerely and regretfully,

Don Hopkins